Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

948 F.2d 1280

Docket No. 91-7102.

Herman Davis v. Michael W. Cox Commonwealth of Virginia

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted July 17, 1991. Decided Nov. 22, 1991.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1991-11-22

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

Relies on Stephen R. Austin v. Anthony M. Franks, Postmaster General

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1991-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 2011

1 district ·

20199120002010decided

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-90-720-R)

Herman Davis, appellant pro se.

Oliver Lewis Norrell, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Herman Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny in forma pauperis status, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Cox, CA-90-720-R (W.D.Va. May 1, 1991). 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.

/948/f2d/1280 · .json · Public domain