Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Barksdale v. Angelone, 02-6565 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6565 Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6565 KENNETH W. BARKSDALE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-1726-AM) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubl
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-6565



KENNETH W. BARKSDALE,

                                               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 Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-00-1726-AM)


Submitted:   August 15, 2002                 Decided:   August 20, 2002


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth W. Barksdale, Appellant Pro Se.  Mary Kathleen Beatty
Martin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Kenneth W. Barksdale seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

memorandum 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 Barksdale v. Angelone, No.

CA-00-1726-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2002). We deny Barksdale’s motions

to compel discovery and to suppress. 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