Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Angelone, 01-6436 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6436 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6436 RICKY JONES, a/k/a George Jones, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1542-AM) Submitted: August 17, 2001 Decided: August 28, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6436 RICKY JONES, a/k/a George Jones, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1542-AM) Submitted: August 17, 2001 Decided: August 28, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lee Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ricky Jones 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 grant Jones’ motion to file an addendum to his informal brief. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, as well as Jones’ informal brief and addendum, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Angelone, No. CA-00-1542-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2001). 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