Filed: Sep. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6701 JIMMY TINSLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-119-R) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Kath
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6701 JIMMY TINSLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-119-R) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Kathe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6701
JIMMY TINSLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RON ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-96-119-R)
Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997
Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current
version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). 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 probable cause to ap-
peal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
Tinsley v. Angelone, No. CA-96-119-R (W.D. VA. Apr. 14, 1997). See
Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997)
(No. 96-6298). 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