Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hansford v. Angelone, 02-6696 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6696 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6696 TERENCE R. HANSFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-615-AM) Submitted: August 30, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismisse
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6696 TERENCE R. HANSFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-615-AM) Submitted: August 30, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Susan Mozley Harris, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Terence R. Hansford 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 opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Hansford has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Hansford v. Angelone, No. CA-01-615-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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