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)
02-6682•Ray Derwood Sizemore v. Mark Williamson
02-6682Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 30, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6682
RAY DERWOOD SIZEMORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MARK WILLIAMSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District
Judge. (CA-99-1105-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2002 Decided: August 30, 2002
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Derwood Sizemore, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Ray Derwood Sizemore appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find that
Sizemore has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. See Sizemore v. Williamson, No. CA-99-1105-1
(S.D.W. Va. Mar. 21, 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.