Albert Russell Clay, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department Ofcorrections, Respondent-appellee, 7 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 7 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: January 14, 1993. Decided: October 4, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Albert Russell Clay, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED

Before WIDENER, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Albert Russell Clay, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal from the order of the district court adopting the magistrate judge's report and denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C.s 2254 (1988). Clay pled guilty to and was convicted under two separate indictments in state court charging conspiracy to commit malicious wounding. He raised several claims in his petition, including a double jeopardy challenge and several allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court found some of his claims procedurally barred and others meritless. Our review of the record reveals that this appeal is without merit. Consequently, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Clay v. Murray, No. CA-92-230-N (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1992).

In light of this disposition, we deny Clay's motion for release on bail pending appeal. We deny Clay's motion to supplement the record and his motion to proceed on appeal and deconsolidate appeals. We deny Clay's Motion to Clarify and Motion to Replace Supplemental Brief for Original Brief and because the time for briefing expired several months before the supplemental brief was filed. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.