U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1996

Bobby Ray Roberts v. George P. Dodson, A/K/A George Deeds, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Bobby Ray Roberts v. George P. Dodson, A/K/A George Deeds, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 10, 1996
96 F.3d 1439; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28802; 1996 WL 511477 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Bobby Ray Roberts v. George P. Dodson, A/K/A George Deeds, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Opinion

96 F.3d 1439

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Bobby Ray ROBERTS, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
George P. DODSON, a/k/a George Deeds, Warden, Keen Mountain
Correctional Center; Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents--Appellees.

No. 96-6319.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 1996.
Decided Sept. 10, 1996.

Bobby Ray Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Roberts v. Dodson, No. CA-95-254-R (W.D.Va. Feb. 16, 1996). 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.

2

DISMISSED.

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