Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0213-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Earl MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBERTSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 01-6164.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2001.
    Decided July 19, 2001.
    Robert Earl Marshall, pro se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
    Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Robert Earl Marshall appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Marshall v. Robertson, No. CA-00-231-3 (E.D.Va. Jan. 2, 2001). 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. 
      
      . The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(a) (West 1994 & Supp.2000).
     
      
      . Marshall raised several new claims for the first time in his informal brief on appeal. Marshall fails to present exceptional circumstances justifying review of these claims. We therefore decline to address them. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).