Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gore v. Angelone, 96-6481 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6481 Visitors: 25
Filed: Sep. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6481 JOSEPH RONALD GORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-769) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6481 JOSEPH RONALD GORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-769) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ronald Gore, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dis- miss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gore v. Angelone, No. CA-95-769 (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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