Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Cole v. Saunders, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Mark William Cole appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and concluded that Cole did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Cole a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Cole v. Saunders, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views2 pages
    1) Mark William Cole appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and concluded that Cole did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Cole a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6608

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Mark William Cole appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and concluded that Cole did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Cole a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    17 views2 pages

    Cole v. Saunders, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Mark William Cole appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and concluded that Cole did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Cole a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-6608

    MARK WILLIAM COLE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    LONNIE
    M.
    SAUNDERS,
    Correctional Center,

    Warden,

    Augusta
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-01-395-7)

    Submitted:

    August 27, 2002

    Decided:

    September 6, 2002

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark William Cole seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Cole has not
    made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
    See Cole v. Saunders, No. CA-01-395-7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2002).
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal. 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

    You might also like