Filed: Nov. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6548 REGINALD THOMAS HARRISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-648-3) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Thomas H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6548 REGINALD THOMAS HARRISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-648-3) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Thomas Ha..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6548 REGINALD THOMAS HARRISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-648-3) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Thomas Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Reginald Thomas Harrison seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's* order denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 114. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Harrison v. Angelone, No. CA-95-648-3 (E.D. Va., Mar. 14, 1996). To the extent necessary we also deny a certificate of ap- pealability. 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 * The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2