Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Floyd v. Angelone, 00-6724 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6724 Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6724 DAVID C. FLOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1709-2) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6724 DAVID C. FLOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1709-2) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David C. Floyd, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: David C. Floyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Floyd v. Angelone, No. CA-99-1709-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 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
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