Filed: Apr. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8064 DAVID TERRY KIDD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-210-2) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8064 DAVID TERRY KIDD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-210-2) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8064 DAVID TERRY KIDD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-210-2) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Terry Kidd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Terry Kidd, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders: (1) denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) and entering judgment in favor of the Respondent; and (2) denying various post-judgment motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and the order denying the post-judgment motions, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Kidd v. Angelone, No. CA-01-210-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2001; Jan. 2, 2002). We deny Kidd’s motion to authorize preparation of transcripts at the Government’s expense. 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