Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

106 F.3d 389

Docket No. 95-2361.

Black v. Newcombe

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Dec. 26, 1996. Decided Jan. 24, 1997.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1997-01-24

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 2009

1 state decisions

Relies on Equipment Finance Group, Incorporated v. Traverse Computer Brokers, and Synchronized Design and Development Company, Incorporated · Paul M. Blowe v. Kimberly R. Patterson, Paul M. Blowe v. Jeffrey L. Stredler, Paul M. Blowe v. Virginia State Bar, Second District Committee, Section Ii, Paul M. Blowe v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Trans Portation Roads Right of Way Vdot Engineering by James C. Cleveland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1997-01-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-763-A)

David Franklin Black, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Black v. Newcombe, No. CA-95-763-A (E.D. Va. June 8, 1995); see Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.1992) (discussing appellate review of premature appeals under the doctrine of cumulative finality). We note that Appellant's failure to note an appeal of the district court's March 19, 1996, order deprives us of jurisdiction to consider that order. We deny Appellant's renewed motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED

/106/f3d/389 · .json · Public domain