Narrative Opinion Summary
Roger Allison and David S. Anderson, acting pro se, appealed the district court's denial of their petitions for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the records and the district court's opinions, ultimately finding no reversible error. The court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeals, citing the reasoning of the district court in Allison v. Warden and Anderson v. Warden. The court also stated that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials. Additionally, Allison's motion to compel was denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Certificate of Probable Causesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal, indicating that the appeal did not present a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Reasoning: The court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeals, citing the reasoning of the district court in Allison v. Warden and Anderson v. Warden.
Denial of Motion to Compelsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The motion to compel filed by Allison was denied, indicating the court found no basis to grant the motion.
Reasoning: Additionally, Allison's motion to compel was denied.
Dismissal of Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeals were dismissed by the appellate court after a review of the records and district court's opinions, which revealed no reversible error.
Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the records and the district court's opinions, ultimately finding no reversible error.
Oral Argument Not Requiredsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.
Reasoning: The court also stated that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.