Filed: Jan. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7580 OLIVER J. HAIRSTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-384-R) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7580 OLIVER J. HAIRSTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-384-R) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7580 OLIVER J. HAIRSTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-384-R) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oliver J. Hairston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Oliver J. Hairston, Jr., seeks to appeal 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 dis- trict 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. See Hairston v. Angelone, No. CA-98-384-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2