Filed: Sep. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7074 WILLIAM J. BUCHANAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Correc- tions; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-737-R) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7074 WILLIAM J. BUCHANAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Correc- tions; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-737-R) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7074 WILLIAM J. BUCHANAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Correc- tions; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-737-R) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William J. Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.A. ยง 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Buchanan v. Angelone, No. CA-97-737-R (W.D. Va. June 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2