Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Herrell v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Roger Herrell appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief by a magistrate judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's denial. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Herrell a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the magistrate judge that denied habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-03-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6011

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Roger Herrell appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief by a magistrate judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's denial. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Herrell a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the magistrate judge that denied habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    Herrell v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Roger Herrell appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief by a magistrate judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the magistrate judge's denial. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Herrell a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the magistrate judge that denied habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-6011

    ROGER BRUCE HERRELL,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-01-24)

    Submitted:

    March 21, 2002

    Decided:

    March 29, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Roger Bruce Herrell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Richard Carson Vorhis,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Roger Bruce Herrell appeals the magistrate judges 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 magistrate
    judges opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
    reasoning of the magistrate judge.

    See Herrell v. Angelone, No.

    CA-01-24 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 19, 2001; entered Nov. 20, 2001).

    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

    This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising


    jurisdiction upon consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C.A. 636(c)
    (West 1993 & Supp. 2001).
    2

    You might also like