Filed: Nov. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6950 GREGORY LEON HAMMER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-374-7) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Leon Hammer, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6950 GREGORY LEON HAMMER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-374-7) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Leon Hammer, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6950 GREGORY LEON HAMMER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-374-7) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Leon Hammer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Gregory Leon Hammer 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 conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Hammer has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Hammer v. Angelone, No. CA-01-374-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 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