-RSB Forgette v. Clarke, No. 7:2011cv00496 - Document 5 (W.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/24/2011. (kab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
el n cE J - - /s ov l t.s Dl cour sm A R A x ,A T o xo i v FIED L 02T 2, 221 # 1 ITEN ESAEDSRCCUTuujrccR NHUI DTTSI I OR yz/' ,c T TT t . ux u . FO R TH E W ESTER N D I RI T O F V I G I I ST C R N A ROANOKE DI I ON V SI JAM ES REGAN FOR GETTE, D eur CL RK 'y E CASE NO . 11CV00496 7: Pettone ii r, M EM O M N D U M O PI I N N O VS. H A R O LD W .C LA RK E, By: G l n E .Conr e ad Chi fU ni e St e Di t c Judge e t d at s s ri t Respondent. J e Re For ete,a V igi a i a epr ee ng pr K , ie t spe ii f a wr t nm s gan g t r ni nm t oc di o f l d hi tton or i . ofha ascopus pm s t 28U. C.j2254,c lngi t vai t ofhi c i me f be , uant o S. hale ng he ldiy s onfne nt or t sa ec tc i i c ci .Upon r vi w oft r or t c tc udest t wo t t our rm nal onvi tons e e he ec d, he our oncl hat he p tto mu t es mma i ds se wih u p eu iefrfiu et e h us saec u t ei n s b u rl imisd t o t rj dc o al r o x a t tt o r i y r nA es e edi . A j d eo t eFrn lnComt Cic i Co r f u dFo g teg it i Se tmb r2 0o u g f h a k i t y rut u to n r et u ly n pe e 01 f t co mt ofa s ul ofa l w e or e e ofi e a s n e d hi t s r tm e i pr s wo t s s a t a nf c m nt t c r nd e t nce m o e ve i n i on. For te s a eson t f ce ofhi pe ii t the di nota ge t t t he a s tton ha d ppea orf l a s a e pe ii f a w rt l ie ny t t tton or i ofhabe c as omusconc r ngt ec ci .Hefldaj225 peii i t UniedStt eni hes onvitons ie 4 tton n he t aes DititCour f t Ease. DititofVigi ai Se e r2011 a i wa ta f re t src t or he t l src n r ni n pt mbe , nd t s r ns e r d o t sco ton O c obe 1 2011 I hi pe ii n, ge t a l ge t t s a e ti lc t hi ur t r 9, . n s tto For te le s hat he t t r a our wr f l de e hi m oton f aps hiti e l to t r butt sae' evi nc i s ong uly nid s i or yc a rc vaua i n o e he t t s de e n uppo t r oft c r es he ha g . Unde 28U. C.j2254(9,af rlc tcn grntaha aspeii unls t r S. 1 edea our nnot a be tton e s he pe ii rhase us ed t r m e e a ia e i t c t oft s a e i whi h he w as ttone xha t he e di s va l bl n he our s he t t n c c onvi t The e us i r quie e i s tsi d by s e ng r vi w oft c ai si t hi he t c ed. xha ton e r m nt s a i te e ki e e he l m n he g s saec u t t u idcint c n ie t cams S eO' ulv nv. rke,5 6U.. 3 , tt o r wihj rs ito o o sd r he li . e S lia Boec l 2 S 8 8 8 ( 999) I Vigni a trt tmef die ta lt t Co tofAppe sofVigi ahas 45 1 . n r i a, fe he i or rc ppea o he ur al r ni expied,a i a e ca exha thi sa e co tr m e esi o oft o w a . Fis ,he c n fl a r n nm t n us s t t ur e di n ne w ys r t a ie saehabe pe ii wih t Cic tCour whe ehe wasco c e wih a a a ofa ad r e tt as tton t he r ui t r nvit d, t n ppe l n ve s d cso t t eS prmeCo r of r i a Va Co eAn j8016 4()1 ; 1 .- 1 I te e ii n o h u e u t Vigni. . d n. . - 5 a( ) j 7 141 . n h at r tve, ca fl a sa eha aspe ii die ty wih t Supr m eCour ofVigi a. le na i he n ie tt be tton r c l t he e t r ni j8. - a () Whihe rr ehef l , mus uli t yprs nthi camst t 01654() 1. c ve out olows he t tmael e e s li o he Supr m eCour ofVigi abe or a f de alditi tco tc n consde t m e isofhi c am s e t r ni f e e r src ur a i r he rt s li underj2254. For te' s ge t s ubmi so cla l i c t t thehassa ecour r m e e sila ia et s i ns e ry ndi a e ha tt t e di s tl val bl o hi , m e y,Cic tCour ha aspr e di a as eque a alt t Supr m eCour of m na l r ui t be oc e ngs nd ubs nt ppe o he e t Vigi ai t Cic tCour peii i de ed.Thus t c tmus dimishi j2254peii r ni f he rui t tton s ni ,he our t s s s tton wih u meu ief rfiu et e h us saec u t e d e . Se S a tnv. mi 4 4U. t o t j dc o alr o x a t tt o r rme isl e lvo S t 0 S. h, 5 , 4( 9 )(idngt a j2 5 h b a peiinmus b d s se wih u p eu iei 3 5 1 71 fn i h t 2 4 a e s t o t t e imis d t o t rj d c f peiine ha notpr e tdhi cai t t a o it saec ta c dsildo s .An tto r s es ne s l ms o he ppr prae tt our nd oul tl o) a opr a e or rw ili s t s da ppr i t de l s ue hi y. The Clr i die t d t s nd c e oft sme or ndum opi o a a om pa ng e k s r c e o e opi s hi m a ni n nd cc nyi or rt pe ii ne . de o tto r ENTER:Th s 1V- d yo Oco e , 2011. i a f tb r z k l ' k j y y t j'; /' '. v U'k ? wwzd Chi Unie St t DititJ ef t d aes src udge 1 Thecourtnot t teven i For t had exhaused hi sat cour r es ha f gete t ste t emedi , hi j2 4 p tton es s 25 eii woul ha t bedeni becaus hef l t s a et f son whi t scl m i bas ort expl n how d ve o ed, e ais o t t he act ch hi ai s ed o ai t out e ofhi ti woul have be dif ent abs t deni ofhi m oton. he com s ral d en fer , ent he al s i 2
]]>
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.
