Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Carter v. Angelone, 01-7552 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7552 Visitors: 81
Filed: Mar. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7552 MICHAEL R. CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-862) Submitted: February 27, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Morchower, MORCHOWER, L
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7552 MICHAEL R. CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-862) Submitted: February 27, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Morchower, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia; Christopher Campbell Booberg, THORSEN, MARCHANT & SCHER, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael R. Carter 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. Angelone, No. CA- 00-862 (W.D. Va. Aug. 10, 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
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