William Henry Fields v. Warden of the Staunton Correctional Center

Fourth Circuit

William Henry Fields v. Warden of the Staunton Correctional Center

74 F.3d 1231, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38828, 1996 WL 23197

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 1996

Docket95-6833

StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1231 (William Henry Fields v. Warden of the Staunton 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

William Henry Fields v. Warden of the Staunton Correctional Center, 74 F.3d 1231, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38828, 1996 WL 23197 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

74 F.3d 1231
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

William Henry FIELDS, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF THE STAUNTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 95-6833.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 23, 1996.

William Henry Fields, Appellant Pro Se.

Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fields v. Warden, Staunton Correctional Ctr., No. CA-94-825-R (W.D.Va. Apr. 28, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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

74 F.3d 1231
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

William Henry FIELDS, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF THE STAUNTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 95-6833.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 23, 1996.

William Henry Fields, Appellant Pro Se.

Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fields v. Warden, Staunton Correctional Ctr., No. CA-94-825-R (W.D.Va. Apr. 28, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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)

74 F.3d 1231, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38828, 1996 WL 23197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-henry-fields-v-warden-of-the-staunton-corr-ca4-1996.