Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Carlon Edward Pittman v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 95-7280 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7280 Visitors: 23
Filed: May 09, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 85 F.3d 616 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Carlon Edward PITTMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-7280. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: February 6, 1996. D
More

85 F.3d 616

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Carlon Edward PITTMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-7280.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 6, 1996.
Decided: May 9, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-855-2)

Carlon Edward Pittman, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Pittman v. Angelone, No. CA-94-855-2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 1, 1995). 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

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