Filed: Aug. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6034 CLARENCE J. PERRY, JR. Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK L. EARLEY; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-193-2) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6034 CLARENCE J. PERRY, JR. Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK L. EARLEY; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-193-2) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6034 CLARENCE J. PERRY, JR. Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK L. EARLEY; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-193-2) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence J. Perry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Clarence J. Perry, Jr., 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Perry v. Earley, No. CA-00- 193-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2000). 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 2