Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Chapman v. Angelone, 01-7366 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7366 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 14, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7366 LOUIS ROY CHAPMAN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COM- MONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-848) Submitted: December 18, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002 Before MICHAEL, KING
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7366 LOUIS ROY CHAPMAN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COM- MONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-848) Submitted: December 18, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis Ray Chapman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Louis Roy Chapman, 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. 2001) and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Chapman v. Angelone, No. CA-00-848 (E.D. Va. July 12 & Aug. 6, 2001). We deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and deny Chapman’s motion for appoinment of counsel. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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