Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Robinson v. Angelone, 98-6785 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6785 Visitors: 55
Filed: Feb. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6785 JOHN KENNEDY ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-688-AM) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6785 JOHN KENNEDY ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-688-AM) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Clyde Clark, LAND, CLARK, CARROLL & MENDELSON, P.C., Alex- andria, Virginia; Wm. Lee Robinson, Macon, Georgia, for Appellant. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Kennedy Robinson 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 Robinson v. Angelone, No. CA-97-688-AM (E.D. Va. May 7, 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
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