Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mills v. Angelone, 01-7551 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7551 Visitors: 40
Filed: Aug. 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7551 MICHAEL EDWARD MILLS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-691-7, CA-00-743-7) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Edward Mil
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7551 MICHAEL EDWARD MILLS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-691-7, CA-00-743-7) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Edward Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Edward Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002), and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Angelone, Nos. CA- 00-691-7; CA-00-743-7 (W.D. Va. July 5, 2001 & Aug. 16, 2001). While we grant Mills’ motion to amend his informal brief, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel, temporary stay, and evidentiary hearing. We further deny Mills’ motion for 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