Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Guilfoyle v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views3 pages
    David Guilfoyle filed two petitions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the records and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court. The court also granted Guilfoyle's motion to incorporate his brief filed in one case into the other case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-09-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6608

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    David Guilfoyle filed two petitions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the records and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court. The court also granted Guilfoyle's motion to incorporate his brief filed in one case into the other case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    17 views3 pages

    Guilfoyle v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    David Guilfoyle filed two petitions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court denied relief based on the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the records and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court. The court also granted Guilfoyle's motion to incorporate his brief filed in one case into the other case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-6608

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

    No. 98-6609

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

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-96-1237-2, CA-96-1238-2)

    Submitted:

    August 18, 1998

    Decided:

    September 1, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David J. Guilfoyle, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,


    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:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying
    relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994
    & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the records 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 appeals on the reasoning
    of the district court. Guilfoyle v. Angelone, Nos. CA-96-1237-2;
    CA-96-1238-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1998). We grant Guilfoyles motion
    to incorporate his brief filed in No. 98-6609, to No. 98-6608. 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