Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6173 KENNETH RAY PACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1582-AM) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Ray Pack, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6173 KENNETH RAY PACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1582-AM) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Ray Pack, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6173 KENNETH RAY PACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1582-AM) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Ray Pack, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Pack seeks to appeal the district court’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 district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Pack’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Pack v. Angelone, No. CA-00-1582-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5, 2001; entered Jan. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
