Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Gullion v. Warden of Brunswick, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Samuel Gullion filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 claiming that the victim's contradictory testimony at his trial amounted to perjury, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge this testimony, and that the trial transcript was altered. The district court denied relief, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Gullion's appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its February 12, 1998 order denying his petition.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Gullion v. Warden of Brunswick, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    Samuel Gullion filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 claiming that the victim's contradictory testimony at his trial amounted to perjury, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge this testimony, and that the trial transcript was altered. The district court denied relief, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Gullion's appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its February 12, 1998 order denying his petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6275

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Samuel Gullion filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 claiming that the victim's contradictory testimony at his trial amounted to perjury, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge this testimony, and that the trial transcript was altered. The district court denied relief, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Gullion's appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its February 12, 1998 order denying his petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Gullion v. Warden of Brunswick, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Samuel Gullion filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 claiming that the victim's contradictory testimony at his trial amounted to perjury, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge this testimony, and that the trial transcript was altered. The district court denied relief, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Gullion's appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its February 12, 1998 order denying his petition.

    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. 98-6275

    SAMUEL DAVID GULLION,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN OF BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CA-97-361-R)
    Submitted:

    May 14, 1998

    Decided:

    June 3, 1998

    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Samuel David Gullion, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
    1998). On appeal, he challenges the district court's denial of
    relief on his claims that the victim's contradictory testimony
    amounted to perjury, that his counsel was ineffective in failing to
    challenge the testimony, and that the trial transcript was altered
    to cover up perjury and other trial errors. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gullion v. Warden of
    Brunswick Correctional Ctr., No. CA-97-361-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 12,
    1998). 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