Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Taylor v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jeffrey Alan Taylor sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Taylor's appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court also denied Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in one of the appeals.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-12-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6890

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jeffrey Alan Taylor sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Taylor's appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court also denied Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in one of the appeals.

    Copyright:

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

    Taylor v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jeffrey Alan Taylor sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Taylor's appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court also denied Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in one of the appeals.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-6890

    JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    No. 00-7081

    JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
    (CA-99-1359-2)

    Submitted:

    November 22, 2000

    Decided:

    December 6, 2000

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jeffrey Alan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,


    Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jeffrey Alan Taylor seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1999).

    We have reviewed the record, the district

    courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate


    judge, and the district courts order denying Taylors postjudgment motions, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the
    See Taylor v. Angelone, No. CA-

    reasoning of the district court.

    99-1359-2 (E.D. Va. May 24, 1999; July 13, 2000).

    We also deny

    Taylors motion to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 00-7081.

    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