Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cain v. Angelone, 98-6516 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6516 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jul. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6516 ROBERT LEWIS CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent -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. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-342-3) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rob
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6516 ROBERT LEWIS CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent -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. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-342-3) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lewis Cain, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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 dis- trict court. Cain v. Angelone, CA-97-342-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 1998). We also deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. In addition, we deny Appellant’s petition for rehearing with a sugges- tion for rehearing in banc. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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