Ward v. Angelone

Fourth Circuit

Ward v. Angelone

30 F. App'x 191

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 2002

Docket01-7778

StatusUnpublished

This text of 30 F. App'x 191 (Ward 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

Ward v. Angelone, 30 F. App'x 191 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Norfleet Ward, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Ward v. Angelone, No. CA-00-394-2 (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 29, 2001; entered Aug. 30, 2001). Further, while we grant Ward’s motion “to include newly discovered evidence for review with appeal,” those materials do not alter our conclusion. 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

PER CURIAM.

John Norfleet Ward, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Ward v. Angelone, No. CA-00-394-2 (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 29, 2001; entered Aug. 30, 2001). Further, while we grant Ward’s motion “to include newly discovered evidence for review with appeal,” those materials do not alter our conclusion. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. App'x 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-angelone-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack