Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Barrow v. Angelone, 01-7212 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7212 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7212 DAVID JAMES BARROW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-00-637-2, CA-00-771-2) Submitted: November 14, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7212 DAVID JAMES BARROW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-00-637-2, CA-00-771-2) Submitted: November 14, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David James Barrow, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: David James Barrow seeks to appeal 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Barrow v. Angelone, Nos. CA-00-637-2; CA- 00-771-2 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2001). We also deny Barrow’s motion to strike the affidavit of Henry Allen Thompson, Sr. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer