Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 12-7905
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00630-MSD-DEM)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Donald Wayne Waters appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm.
I
Waters
was
indicted
penetration
and
aggravated
18.267.2
and
-67.3.
on
charges
sexual
The
of
animate
battery
charges
arise
under
from
object
Va.
an
Code
alleged
incident that occurred while Waters was working in the fouryear-old victims home on a satellite television service call.
The
jury
convicted
Waters
of
aggravated
sexual
battery
but
him
unsuccessfully
Waters filed
to
20-year
pursuing
a
petition
term
of
imprisonment.
state
appellate
and
under
28
2254
U.S.C.
habeas
After
relief,
asserting
13
of
appealability
on
four
claims,
see
28
U.S.C.
good
faith
or
bad
faith
of
the
prosecution.
Evidence
is
accidentally
ordered
pay-per-view
pornographic
movie
of
Virginia
rejected
this
claim,
holding
that
Waters
arrest
him.
The
Supreme
Court
of
Virginia
rejected
this
confirming
that
an
African-American
television
rejected
this
claim,
finding
that
the
material
is
not
on
the
exculpatory.
Waters
fourth
claim
(Claim
XII)
is
based
707
F.3d
475,
510
(4th
Cir.
2013)
(noting
that
not
testify
or
present
any
character
witnesses,
the
The
Supreme
Court
of
Virginia
rejected
this
claim,
district
the
court
parties
conducted
legal
thorough
arguments,
review
and
the
of
the
standards
before
the
Supreme
Court
of
Virginia.
Although
the
court determined that the state court record was limited (as the
Commonwealth argued) to the four exhibits attached to Waters
5
considering
alternatively,
concluded,
only
those
considering
under
both
all
views,
four
of
that
exhibits
the
exhibits.
Waters
is
not
and
The
then,
court
entitled
to
habeas relief.
On
below.
appeal,
Having
Waters
carefully
presents
reviewed
the
same
this
arguments
matter
de
he
novo,
made
see
MacDonald v. Moose, 710 F.3d 154, 159 (4th Cir. 2013), we are
satisfied that the district court correctly resolved the four
claims now before us. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on
the district courts reasoning.
AFFIRMED