Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robin Snurkowski v. Edward Murray, 70 F.3d 112, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Robin Snurkowski filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissing based on the reasoning of the district court. While the claim of newly discovered evidence was not procedurally barred, the Fourth Circuit found it to be without merit and properly dismissed by the district court. The Fourth Circuit also denied Snurkowski's motion for judicial notice and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-11-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 70 F.3d 112 Docket: 95-6926

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robin Snurkowski filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissing based on the reasoning of the district court. While the claim of newly discovered evidence was not procedurally barred, the Fourth Circuit found it to be without merit and properly dismissed by the district court. The Fourth Circuit also denied Snurkowski's motion for judicial notice and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Robin Snurkowski v. Edward Murray, 70 F.3d 112, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robin Snurkowski filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissing based on the reasoning of the district court. While the claim of newly discovered evidence was not procedurally barred, the Fourth Circuit found it to be without merit and properly dismissed by the district court. The Fourth Circuit also denied Snurkowski's motion for judicial notice and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    70 F.

    3d 112

    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.
    Robin SNURKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    Edward MURRAY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 95-6926.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Aug. 31, 1995.
    Decided Nov. 17, 1995.

    Robin Snurkowski, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,


    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    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 substantially on the reasoning of the
    district court. Snurkowski v. Murray, No. CA-94-199-AM (E.D.Va. May 10,
    1995). With respect to Appellant's claim of newly-discovered evidence, we find
    that the claim is not procedurally barred. However, it is without merit and
    therefore, the district court properly dismissed the claim. We also deny
    Appellant's motion for judicial notice. 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

    You might also like