Filed: Feb. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7731 MARION DAVID MELVILLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-566-R) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion David Melville, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7731 MARION DAVID MELVILLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-566-R) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion David Melville, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7731 MARION DAVID MELVILLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-566-R) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion David Melville, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marion David Melville appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for reconsideration of the original judgment dismissing his peti- tion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s oder and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Melville v. Angelone, No. CA-98-566-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 1998). 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. AFFIRMED 2
