Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kendrick v. Angelone, 95-7568 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7568 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7568 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. No. 95-7576 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-363-R, CA-95-459-R) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7568 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. No. 95-7576 RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-363-R, CA-95-459-R) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Beman Beasley, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petitions. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Kendrick v. Angelone, Nos. CA-95-363-R; CA-95-459-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 15, 1995). 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. 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