Woodfin v. Angelone

Fourth Circuit

Woodfin v. Angelone

35 F. App'x 374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 2002

Docket02-6466

StatusUnpublished

This text of 35 F. App'x 374 (Woodfin 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

Woodfin v. Angelone, 35 F. App'x 374 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Wayne Woodfin appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 *375 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Woodfin v. Angelone, No. CA-01-444 (E.D.Va. Mar. 7, 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.

*

The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

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

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Wayne Woodfin appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 *375 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Woodfin v. Angelone, No. CA-01-444 (E.D.Va. Mar. 7, 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.

*

The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F. App'x 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodfin-v-angelone-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack