Filed: Jan. 13, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7104 DALE L. HURT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-239) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 13, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7104 DALE L. HURT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-239) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 13, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7104 DALE L. HURT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-239) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 13, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale L. Hurt, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Dale Hurt appeals 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 opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hurt v. Angelone, No. CA-99-239 (E.D. Va. Aug. 3, 1999). We dis- pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2