Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nicholas v. Angelone, 01-7907 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7907 Visitors: 32
Filed: Aug. 07, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7907 EUGENE C. NICHOLAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-493-2) Submitted: July 26, 2002 Decided: August 7, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dism
More
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7907 EUGENE C. NICHOLAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-493-2) Submitted: July 26, 2002 Decided: August 7, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene C. Nicholas, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Eugene C. Nicholas appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Although we initially dismissed this appeal as untimely, we granted Nicholas’ rehearing petition and have now considered the appeal on the merits. 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Nicholas v. Angelone, No. CA-00-493-2 (E.D. Va. 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 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