Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Coleman v. Angelone, 02-6268 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6268 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 10, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6268 MAURICE ANTHONY COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAROLE BOARD, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-350-2) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6268 MAURICE ANTHONY COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAROLE BOARD, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-350-2) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: July 10, 2002 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Anthony Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; George Maralan Kelley, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Maurice A. Coleman appeals the district court’s order summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Coleman v. Angelone, No. CA-01-350-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2002). 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