Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 F.3d 400

Docket No. 93-7213.

Dennis C. Currence v. Nicholas J. Hun

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: April 21, 1994. Decided: May 10, 1994.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-05-10

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Peggy H. Davis v. Arlington County Board of Education Arthur W. Gosling Margaret McCount Dirner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1994-05-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2014

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

50199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-90-25-E-S)

Dennis C. Currence, appellant pro se.

Teresa Abigail Tarr, Office of the Atty. Gen. of W.Va., Charleston, WV, for appellee.

N.D.W.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Currence v. Hun, No. CA-90-25-E-S (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 3, 1993). 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.

/23/f3d/400 · .json · Public domain