Douglas Kent Dennis v. Warden, Nottoway Corr. Ctr., 70 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Douglas Kent Dennis v. Warden, Nottoway Corr. Ctr., 70 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest negative: Comm'r
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Comm'r
unknown court · Dav · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Hurt v. United States , 70 F.3d 1261 (table), 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 33433 , 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7815 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished opinion), nonacq. 1991- 1 C.B. 1 (1997) .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Douglas Kent Dennis
v.
Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center
95-6820.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 30, 1995.
70 F.3d 1261
Unpublished

70 F.3d 1261

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Douglas Kent DENNIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-6820.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 1995.
Decided: November 30, 1995.

Douglas Kent Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Dennis v. Warden, Nottoway Correctional Ctr., No. CA-94-382 (E.D.Va. May 11, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for 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