Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilson v. Angelone, 99-6995 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6995 Visitors: 25
Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6995 THERESA ANN WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-1101-2) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6995 THERESA ANN WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-1101-2) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa Ann Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Theresa Ann Wilson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Wilson v. Angelone, No. CA-98-1101-2 (E.D. Va. July 7, 1999). We deny the pending motion for the appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer