Coleman v. Angelone

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 10, 2002
Docket02-6268
StatusUnpublished

This text of Coleman v. Angelone (Coleman v. Angelone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coleman v. Angelone, (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6268

MAURICE ANTHONY COLEMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees,

and

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAROLE BOARD,

Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-350-2)

Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: July 10, 2002

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Anthony Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; George Maralan Kelley, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Maurice A. Coleman appeals the district court’s order

summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Coleman v.

Angelone, No. CA-01-350-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Power to grant writ
28 U.S.C. § 2241

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Coleman v. Angelone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-angelone-ca4-2002.