Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Epps v. Angelone, 01-6734 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6734 Visitors: 28
Filed: Oct. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6734 NATHANIEL EPPS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia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 Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-716) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Di
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6734 NATHANIEL EPPS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia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 Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-716) Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Epps appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and Epps’ informal appellate brief. Because Epps failed to chal- lenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s ruling, he has not preserved any issue for our review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In addition, it is clear that the district court’s conclusion that Epps’ petition was untimely is correct. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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