Filed: Oct. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7251 ROBERT ALLISON BRUCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-1426-2) Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: October 17, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Allison Bruce, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7251 ROBERT ALLISON BRUCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-1426-2) Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: October 17, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Allison Bruce, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7251
ROBERT ALLISON BRUCE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-98-1426-2)
Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: October 17, 2000
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Allison Bruce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Allison Bruce 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 dis-
trict 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 Bruce v. Angelone, No.
CA-98-1426-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 1999).* We dispense 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
*
Although the district court relied upon Green v. French,
143
F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
523 U.S. 1090 (1999), the
denial of relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 was still correct under
the standards announced in Williams v. Taylor, U.S. , 120 S.
Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000).
2