Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

94-7002 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7002 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 04, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 51 F.3d 268 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael Sewell SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Michael Sewell SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
More

51 F.3d 268

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael Sewell SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Michael Sewell SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Michael Sewell SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 94-7002, 94-7003, 94-7004.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 21, 1995.
Decided April 4, 1995.

Michael Sewell Smith, appellant pro se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Angelone, Nos. CA-91-503-N; CA-91-504-N; CA-91-505-N (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 1994). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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