Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Williams v. McBride, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Neil Jason Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision to deny relief on Williams' petition for the reasons stated in Neil Jason Williams v. Thomas L. McBride, No. 2:06-cv-00124-REM-JSK (N.D. W. Va. July 22, 2008). The Fourth Circuit determined that oral argument was not necessary as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court in the materials before it.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-06-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8278

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Neil Jason Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision to deny relief on Williams' petition for the reasons stated in Neil Jason Williams v. Thomas L. McBride, No. 2:06-cv-00124-REM-JSK (N.D. W. Va. July 22, 2008). The Fourth Circuit determined that oral argument was not necessary as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court in the materials before it.

    Copyright:

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

    Williams v. McBride, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Neil Jason Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision to deny relief on Williams' petition for the reasons stated in Neil Jason Williams v. Thomas L. McBride, No. 2:06-cv-00124-REM-JSK (N.D. W. Va. July 22, 2008). The Fourth Circuit determined that oral argument was not necessary as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented to the court in the materials before it.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-8278

    NEIL JASON WILLIAMS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    THOMAS L. MCBRIDE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
    District Judge. (2:06-cv-00124-REM-JSK)

    Submitted:

    June 11, 2009

    Decided:

    June 30, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Neil Jason Williams, Appellant Pro Se.


    R. Christopher Smith,
    Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Neil Jason Williams appeals the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief

    on

    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    2254

    (2006)

    petition.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.


    we

    affirm

    for

    Williams

    v.

    July 22,

    2008).

    facts

    and

    materials

    the

    McBride,

    legal
    before

    We

    reasons
    No.

    by

    the

    dispense

    court

    with

    oral

    (N.D.

    argument

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    court.
    W.

    Va.

    because

    the

    presented

    would

    have

    Accordingly,

    district

    2:06-cv-00124-REM-JSK

    contentions
    the

    stated

    We

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like