Filed: Jul. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6587 JAMES E. GOFF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-564-7) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Goff, Appellant Pro Se. Do
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6587 JAMES E. GOFF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-564-7) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Goff, Appellant Pro Se. Don..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6587 JAMES E. GOFF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-564-7) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Goff, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James E. Goff seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 rea- soning of the district court. See Goff v. Angelone, No. CA-99-564- 7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2000). 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
