Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ellison v. Angelone, 01-8044 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-8044 Visitors: 34
Filed: Oct. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8044 SHANE L. ELLISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-751-AM) Submitted: September 25, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8044 SHANE L. ELLISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-751-AM) Submitted: September 25, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shane L. Ellison, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Shane L. Ellison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Ellison has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Ellison v. Angelone, No. CA-01-751-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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