Whisenant v. Director VA Dept ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-6800
    STEVEN C. WHISENANT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CA-99-961-2)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2000            Decided:   December 8, 2000
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven C. Whisenant, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew P. Dullaghan, OF-
    FICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven C. Whisenant seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West
    1994 & Supp. 2000).   We have reviewed the record and the district
    court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
    judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-
    icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
    the district court. See Whisenant v. Director of Virginia Dep’t of
    Corrections, No. CA-99-961-2 (E.D. Va. May 23, 2000)*; see also
    Warren v. Baskerville, No. 99-7230, 
    2000 WL 1692658
     (4th Cir. Nov.
    13, 2000).    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
    *
    Although the district court applied the “reasonable jurists”
    standard of Green v. French, 
    143 F.3d 865
    , 870 (4th Cir. 1998),
    cert. denied, 
    525 U.S. 1090
     (1999), which was subsequently rejected
    by the Supreme Court, see Williams v. Taylor, 
    120 S. Ct. 1495
    , 1522
    (2000), we find that the denial of relief nevertheless was correct
    under the standards announced in Williams. See 
    id. at 1523
    .
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-6800

Filed Date: 12/8/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014