Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7070 VAN PRINCE WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-248-3) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Van Prince Welch, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7070 VAN PRINCE WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-248-3) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Van Prince Welch, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7070 VAN PRINCE WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-248-3) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Van Prince Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew P. Dullaghan, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Van Prince Welch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). 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 district court. See Welch v. Angelone, No. CA-99- 248-3 (E.D. Va. July 7, 1999). We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
