Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

William Cross v. Ronald W. Angelone, 96-7063 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7063 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 105 F.3d 646 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. William CROSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald W. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-7063. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 19, 1996. Decided Jan. 6, 1997. Appeal from the United States Distri
More

105 F.3d 646

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William CROSS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald W. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-7063.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 1996.
Decided Jan. 6, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1494-AM)

William Cross, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert H. Anderson III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cross v. Angelone, No. CA-95-1494-AM (E.D. Va. June 14, 1996). 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