Mills v. Angelone

Fourth Circuit

Mills v. Angelone

42 F. App'x 608

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 2002

Docket01-7551

StatusUnpublished

This text of 42 F. App'x 608 (Mills 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

Mills v. Angelone, 42 F. App'x 608 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Edward Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2002), and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Angelone, Nos. CA-00-691-7; CA-00-743-7 (W.D.Va. July 5, 2001 & Aug. 16, 2001). While we grant Mills’ motion to amend his informal brief, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel, temporary stay, and evidentiary hearing. We further deny Mills’ motion for 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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Edward Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2002), and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Angelone, Nos. CA-00-691-7; CA-00-743-7 (W.D.Va. July 5, 2001 & Aug. 16, 2001). While we grant Mills’ motion to amend his informal brief, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel, temporary stay, and evidentiary hearing. We further deny Mills’ motion for 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 F. App'x 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-angelone-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack