Meredith v. Berry, No. 7:2011cv00275 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Samuel G. Wilson on 6/14/2011. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' OFFI U.S, ST. S CE DI COURT A' FCI NOKEjVA rI A r;- ( -I ) D I TH E UN I N TED STA TES D I STR I CO UR T CT FO R TH E W ESTERN DI STRI O F V I I I CT RG N A R O AN O K E DI I O N V SI JO N AH JUN IO R M ER ED ITH 111, J 1i 2 1 UN 21 J A C ' ' ' ERK ULi ' ? BY; I D G C i lA c i N o.7: C V00275 vi ton 11 Pet toner, ii M EM O M N D UM O PI I N N O VS. BERRY, By: Sam uelG . is W l on U ni e St esD i t c Judge t d at s ri t R es pondent . J h J o M er dih 11 aVigi ai aepr e ngpr K ,fl d t speii f a ona uni r e t 1, r ni nm t oce di o ie hi tton or wrtofha sc puspurua t 28U. C.j225 c le nghi c i men unde t i bea or s nt o S. 4, halngi s onfne t r he Oco e 2 0j d me to t eNes n Co n yCic i Co r, o vitn h m o f r e ya d tb r 01 u g n f h lo u t rut u tc n cig i f o g r n ute i a s nt nci hi t fve yea s i pr s e . Bec us i i c e r f om t f c ofhi t rng nd e e ng m o i r m ionm nt a e t s l a r he a e s pe ii t theha a l bl sa ec tr m e es t c t ncudest tt peii mus be tton ha s vaia e tt our e di , he our co l ha he tton t s m arl di m i s d w ihoutpr l di e.1 um iy s s e t e- c u M e e t s a est the w a s nt nce i t s a e c to Oc obe 27,201 a t thi r dih t t ha s e e d n he t t our n t r 0 nd ha s a a t t Cour ofA ppea sofV i gi a w asde e on M a 1 2011. H e sat t the di ppe l o he t l r ni ni d y 6, t es ha d no t n s k f t r vi w by a hi rs a e c t s h a t Supr m e C o tofVi gi a, and t he ee urher e e ghe t t our , uc s he e ur r ni 2 di nottl any s a e pe ii f a w rtofha ascor co e i t c l nge c c i . d ie t t tton or i be pus nc m ng he hale d onvi tons He a l gest thi a t ne s d have c le ha s tor y houl onduc e addii lpr t i i tga i a a r i f td tona e ral nves i ton, nd s ele , he s eksa a ala a e n ppe nd ppoi t e ofnew co el n m nt uns . 1 M ee t fld aprvi j2 4 p tto c aln n tes mec viton Ca eNo. rdih ie e ous 25 eiin h le gig h a on ci , s 7: 1 1 CV00 48, c wa dimis dwiho tprj ie byopnin a or e e e e J e2, 01 , o 2 whih s s s e t u eudc , i o nd d r ntr d un 2 1 f r f l e t exhaus sa e cour r edis. aiur o t tt t em e 2 M er dih sat t t Cour ofAppeal ofVigi a i t hi tcour t whi he ca e t t es hat he t s r ni s he ghes t o ch n appealhi convi i s cton. Thi s a ementi c r t t ext t hi t ry- opport t t appealt s tt s orect o he ent hat s hit day uniy o he M a l 201lr i oft Cour ofAppeal t t Supr y 6, ulng he t s o he eme CourtofV igi ahasnow expied. r ni r Unde 28U. C.12254(9, fdealc tc nnotgantaha aspeii unls t r S. 1 a e r our n r be tton e s he pe ii rhase ttone xhause t r m e e a lbl i t c t oft sa e i whih hewas t d he e dis vaia e n he ours he t t n c con c e The e usi r uie e i s tsi by s e ng r viw oft c am i t hi he t vit d. xha ton eq r m nt s a ited e ki e e he l i n he g s saec u t t j rs ito t c n i e tecam.S eO' lia v. ec e,5 6U. 8 tt o r wi u id ci n o o sd r h li e Sulv n Bo rk l 2 S. 38 h ( 999 . 1 ) Ia t ppea s f om M e e t s s i s onst the coul brng hi c ai sofi f e tve r r r dih' ubm s i ha d i s lm ne f c i as it nce ofc ssa ouns li a tm e y s a e ha spe ii i t N e s Count Cic tCour , ih a e n i l t t bea tton n he l on y r ui tw t s eq topporuniy t a alt t Supr me Co tofVigi a. SeeVa.Co Ann. 8. ubs uen t t o ppe o he e ur r ni de 5 01 65 A) j1 1406( .I t atr tve, c dpr e t ecai i atmel saeha a 4( ; 7.- B) n he lenai he oul esnt hes l ms n i y tt be s peii diecl t t SuprmeCour ofVigi a.Va. tton r ty o he e t r ni Codej8. - A) M ee t 01654( . rdih c ompl nst theno l rhasc ai ha onge ouns l Thi f tdoesnote i uih t r quie ntt the e . s ac xtng s he e r me ha e us saec trme e beor brngi hi camst t scour unde j2254.Be a ehe xha t tt our e dis f e i ng s li o hi t r c us ha t s a ia e s a e c tr m e e , hi c t nno ye a es t m ert ofhi c a m sa s he e va l bl t t our e di s t s our ca t t ddr s he is s l i nd mu ti ta d s s t ep t inwih u p eu ie p ts a t oRul 4o t eRu e Go enng s,nse d, imis h ei o t o t rj dc , t u n t e f h ls v r i t r a o j2254Ca es3 See Sl yt n v Smih,404U. 53( 971 (e rngf rlc todimis s . t S. 1 ) r quii edea our t s s . une use j2254peiinwihoutprj c ) Ana opraeor wilis t sda 4 The xha td tto t eudie . ppr it der l sue hi y. Cl r i diecedt s nd copi oft sm e or ndum o ni a a co pa ng or rt ek s r t o e es hi m a pi on nd c m nyi de o pettoner. ii E ' R TiI dy fue21. xr : hs 1h aoJn,01 E . rfie sttsDititJ td ae src udge 3 Pur ua t Rul 4, t c u t ys s nt o e he o r ma umma i dimisaj22 peiin wh r qj pj nj rl s s y 54 tto e e ut ai y appea sf om t f oft petton and a annexedexhi t' t tpe ii r r he ace he ii ny bis' ha ttoneri note il t r i . s ntted o elef 4 M er t m a r ie hi f alha edih y efl s eder beaspetton i he i siluns ii f s tl ucces f i obt ni r i s ul n ai ng elef af erpr ntng hi cl m st t Supr eCour ofVigi a. t ese i s ai o he em t r ni
]]>
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.
