Smith v. Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center

42 F. App'x 623

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2002

DocketNo. 02-6110

StatusPublished

This text of 42 F. App'x 623 (Smith v. Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center) 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

Smith v. Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, 42 F. App'x 623 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Earl Smith seeks to appeal portions of the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Specifically, Smith challenges the denial of his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve for appeal a claim that the prosecution introduced irrelevant evidence and a claim that his conviction was obtained by prosecutorial misconduct. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Warden, Nottoway Corr. Ctr., No. CA-00-1240-AM (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 10, 2001 & entered Dec. 11, 2001). 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

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Earl Smith seeks to appeal portions of the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Specifically, Smith challenges the denial of his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve for appeal a claim that the prosecution introduced irrelevant evidence and a claim that his conviction was obtained by prosecutorial misconduct. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Warden, Nottoway Corr. Ctr., No. CA-00-1240-AM (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 10, 2001 & entered Dec. 11, 2001). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 F. App'x 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-warden-nottoway-correctional-center-ca4-2002.