Filed: Mar. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7838 TONY D. LANKFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1436-AM) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7838 TONY D. LANKFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1436-AM) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7838
TONY D. LANKFORD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-1436-AM)
Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony D. Lankford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tony D. Lankford appeals the district court’s order granting
the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and 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 a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. See Lankford v. Angelone, No. CA-99-1436-AM (E.D.
Va. filed Sept. 26, 2001; entered Sept. 27, 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
*
To the extent that Lankford raises claims in his informal
brief that were not presented to the district court, we note that
he cannot raise them for the first time on appeal. See Muth v.
United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
2