Jimmy Tinsley v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

98 F.3d 1335, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40092, 1996 WL 578686
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 9, 1996
Docket95-7548
StatusUnpublished

This text of 98 F.3d 1335 (Jimmy Tinsley v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections) 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
Jimmy Tinsley v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 98 F.3d 1335, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40092, 1996 WL 578686 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

98 F.3d 1335

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jimmy TINSLEY, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 95-7548.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 3, 1996.
Decided Oct. 9, 1996.

Jimmy Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED. Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Tinsley v. Angelone, No. CA-94-256-R (W.D.Va. Apr. 4, 1995 & Aug. 28, 1995). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 F.3d 1335, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40092, 1996 WL 578686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmy-tinsley-v-ronald-j-angelone-director-virginia-department-of-ca4-1996.