Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7311 VAN PRINCE WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-337-2) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7311 VAN PRINCE WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-337-2) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7311 VAN PRINCE WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-337-2) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Van Prince Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 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 ap- peal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Welch v. Angelone, No. CA-95-337-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 3, 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 2
