Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Angelone, 00-6957 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6957 Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6957 JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Warden of Greensville Cor- rectional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-876-3) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6957 JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Warden of Greensville Cor- rectional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-876-3) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, and denying his request for a hearing. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Angelone, No. CA-99-876-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, June 15 & July 10, 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