Ronald Charles Wagener v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

966 F.2d 1446, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 22165, 1992 WL 132562
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 12, 1992
Docket92-6362
StatusUnpublished

This text of 966 F.2d 1446 (Ronald Charles Wagener v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ronald Charles Wagener v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 966 F.2d 1446, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 22165, 1992 WL 132562 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

966 F.2d 1446

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ronald Charles WAGENER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-6362.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 12, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-91-232-N)

Ronald Charles Wagener, Appellant Pro Se.

Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Charles Wagener seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.s 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wagener v. Murray, No. CA-91-232-N (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 1992). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
966 F.2d 1446, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 22165, 1992 WL 132562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-charles-wagener-v-edward-w-murray-director--ca4-1992.