Robert Earl Marshall v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 4th Cir. 1993 . 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Earl Marshall…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6164
ROBERT EARL MARSHALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
A. D. ROBERTSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-00-231-3)
Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 19, 2001
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Earl Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assis-
tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

1 The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(a) (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).
2 Marshall raised several new claims for the first time in his
informal brief on appeal. Marshall fails to present exceptional
circumstances justifying review of these claims. We therefore de-
cline to address them. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993).
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Earl Marshall appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 2000). 1 We have reviewed the record and the magis-
trate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal sub-
stantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. 2 See Marshall
v. Robertson, No. CA-00-231-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2001). 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

-- 2 of 2 --