Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gray v. Angelone, 95-7411 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7411 Visitors: 57
Filed: Sep. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7411 RICHARD A. GRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia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-95-273-2) Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7411 RICHARD A. GRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia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-95-273-2) Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law. Co-op Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a cer- tificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Angelone, No. CA-95-273-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 1995). 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. 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