Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gholson v. Angelone, 96-6798 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6798 Visitors: 63
Filed: Sep. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6798 LONNIE MCDONOVAN GHOLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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-94-909-N) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubl
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6798 LONNIE MCDONOVAN GHOLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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-94-909-N) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonnie McDonovan Gholson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 under 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. 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 the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gholson v. Angelone, No. CA-94-909-N (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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