Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Harvin v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Andre Harvin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying habeas corpus relief.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Harvin v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Andre Harvin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying habeas corpus relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-12-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6934

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Andre Harvin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying habeas corpus relief.

    Copyright:

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

    Harvin v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Andre Harvin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying habeas corpus relief.

    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. 97-6934

    ANDRE HARVIN,
    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. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
    (CA-97-68-2)
    Submitted:

    December 11, 1997

    Decided:

    December 30, 1997

    Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andre Harvin, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
    1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's 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.
    Harvin v. Angelone, No. CA-97-68-2 (E.D. Va. June 18, 1997). 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

    You might also like