UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6744
RICHARD LEE HAYWOOD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DONALD GUILLORY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
District Judge. (CA-95-1161)
Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Lee Haywood, Appellant. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 from the district court's order denying
relief on his petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as
amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. In his petition, Appellant
raised the following claims: (1) his attempted murder and malicious
wounding convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; (2) his
indictments were defective; (3) his arraignment was improperly
conducted; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction for breaking and entering, first degree murder, and
abduction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
opinion and find no reversible error as to the dismissal of claims
(1) and (2). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss these claims on the reasoning of the district court.
Haywood v. Guillory, No. CA-95-1161 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 1996).
Upon further review, we find claim (3) and all but the
breaking and entering count in claim (4) to be non-exhausted and
procedurally defaulted under the rule in Slayton v. Parrigan, 205
S.E.2d 680 (Va. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975). Turning
then to the only remaining claim, we find that, taking the evidence
adduced at trial and its logical inferences in the light most
favorable to the Government, a reasonable fact-finder could have
found Appellant guilty of violating Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-92 (Michie
1995 Supp.) beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
2
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3