Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Powe v. Angelone, 96-7084 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7084 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7084 TYRONE DOUGLAS POWE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Respondent -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-96-124-3) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Douglas Powe,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7084 TYRONE DOUGLAS POWE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Respondent -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-96-124-3) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Douglas Powe, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 magistrate judge's* order deny- ing relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), as 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Powe v. Angelone, No. CA-96-124-3 (E.D. Va. June 17, 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 * The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 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