Filed: Dec. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6740 ROBERT DALE STRICKLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.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-99-1542-2) Submitted: November 7, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dale Strickler, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6740 ROBERT DALE STRICKLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.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-99-1542-2) Submitted: November 7, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dale Strickler, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6740 ROBERT DALE STRICKLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.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-99-1542-2) Submitted: November 7, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dale Strickler, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 courts order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifi- cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Strickler v. Angelone, No. CA-99-1542-2 (E.D. Va. May 16, 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
