Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Connell v. Angelone, 02-6514 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6514 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6514 FRANK M. CONNELL, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. No. 02-6881 FRANK M. CONNELL, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6514 FRANK M. CONNELL, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. No. 02-6881 FRANK M. CONNELL, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-806-2) Submitted: August 9, 2002 Decided: September 3, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank M. Connell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Frank M. Connell, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failing to file an amended petition within the time set forth in the court’s order permitting the amendment, and denying Connell’s motion for additional findings. After reviewing the record and the district court’s opinion, we conclude that Connell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss these appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See Connell v. Angelone, No. CA-01-806-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2002 & May 8, 2002). 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 3
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