Head v. Guillory
Head v. Guillory
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7203
DAVID WAYNE HEAD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DONALD R. GUILLORY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-152-AM)
Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Head, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 &
Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Head v. Guillory, No. CA-97-152-AM (E.D. Va. July 28, 1997). Because we
find that the state court properly applied Virginia law to Appel-
lant's claims of an unknowing and unintelligently entered guilty
plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, we dismiss the appeal of these claims as meritless. See Anderson v. Warden,
281 S.E.2d 885(Va. 1981). We also dismiss Appellant's claim that the district
court should have held an evidentiary hearing because the motions, files, and record adequately demonstrate that Appellant is not en-
titled to relief. See Fontaine v. United States,
411 U.S. 213, 215(1973). 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished