U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1991

Jason Sotiris Karavias, II v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Jason Sotiris Karavias, II v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 21, 1991
929 F.2d 693; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12584; 1991 WL 41600 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Jason Sotiris Karavias, II v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Opinion

929 F.2d 693
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jason Sotiris KARAVIAS, II, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections; Attorney General of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6000.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 1991.
Decided March 21, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-90-151-R)

Jason Sotiris Karavias, II, appellant pro se.

Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Jason Sotiris Karavias, II seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. 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. Karavias v. Murray, CA-90-151-R (E.D.Va. Dec. 12, 1990). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.