Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Easter v. Angelone, 01-7098 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7098 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7098 LARRY KEITH EASTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-242) Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7098 LARRY KEITH EASTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-242) Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Keith Easter, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Larry Keith Easter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). 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 certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Easter v. Angelone, No. CA-00-242, (E.D. Va. June 6, 2001). We grant Easter’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his motions for appointment of counsel and for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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