Filed: Mar. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7850 ERIC O. BLIZZARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1494-AM) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric O. Blizzard, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7850 ERIC O. BLIZZARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1494-AM) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric O. Blizzard, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7850 ERIC O. BLIZZARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1494-AM) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric O. Blizzard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric O. Blizzard appeals 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Blizzard’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Blizzard v. Angelone, No. CA-01- 1494-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 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
