Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6377 JEROME ANTHONY HOWARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus F. W. GREEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1800-AM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Anthony Howard, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6377 JEROME ANTHONY HOWARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus F. W. GREEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1800-AM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Anthony Howard, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6377 JEROME ANTHONY HOWARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus F. W. GREEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1800-AM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Anthony Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome Anthony Howard 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 Howard’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Howard v. Green, No. CA-99-1800-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 24, 2001; entered Jan. 25, 2001). In light of our review of the entire record on appeal, we deny Howard’s motion for in camera review. 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