Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hartless v. Angelone, 00-6564 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6564 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jun. 26, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6564 STEVEN T. HARTLESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee, JAMES M. HARTLESS, SR., Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-99-445-2) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMIL
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6564 STEVEN T. HARTLESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee, JAMES M. HARTLESS, SR., Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-99-445-2) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven T. Hartless, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Steven T. Hartless seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hartless v. Angelone, No. CA- 99-445-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2000). 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 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