The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-7418•Michael D. Hillman v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden
00-7418Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 20, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7418
MICHAEL D. HILLMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(CA-99-219-AM)
Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Hillman, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Hillman appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
Hillman v. Hinkle, No. CA-99-219-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 25, 2000;
entered Sept. 27, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.