Filed: Jul. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7294 MICHAEL O. BILLINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD W. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-568) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7294 MICHAEL O. BILLINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD W. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-568) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7294
MICHAEL O. BILLINGTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD W. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-568)
Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Thomas Zerkin, GERALD T. ZERKIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael O. Billington seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998)). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. Billington v. Angelone, No. CA-95-
568 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4 and July 26, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521
U.S. ___,
1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We
also deny Billington’s motion for a certificate of appealability.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2