Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ingram v. Angelone, 97-7254 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7254 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jul. 31, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7254 ABRON INGRAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-237) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7254 ABRON INGRAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-237) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abron Ingram, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley Ann Whittle, John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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 appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Ingram v. Angelone, No. CA-97-237 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 1997). In addition, we decline to address claims raised for the first time on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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