Filed: Nov. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7169 WILLIAM LEITH PASCHALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-219) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lei
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7169 WILLIAM LEITH PASCHALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-219) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Leit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7169 WILLIAM LEITH PASCHALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-219) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Leith Paschall, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William Leith Paschall appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district 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 Paschall v. Angelone, No. CA- 01-219 (E.D. Va. July 5, 2001). 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