Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Shane L. Ellison appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and reasoning and concluded that Ellison did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Ellison's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The Fourth Circuit also dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-10-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-8044

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shane L. Ellison appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and reasoning and concluded that Ellison did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Ellison's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The Fourth Circuit also dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Shane L. Ellison appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and reasoning and concluded that Ellison did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Ellison's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. The Fourth Circuit also dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-8044

    SHANE L. ELLISON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director
    Department of Corrections,

    of

    Virginia
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-01-751-AM)

    Submitted:

    September 25, 2002

    Decided:

    October 8, 2002

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shane L. Ellison, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 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:
    Shane L. Ellison seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Ellison has
    not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right. See Ellison v. Angelone, No. CA-01-751-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 8,
    2001).

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    oral

    argument

    See U.S.C. 2253(c) (2000).

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    We dispense with
    contentions

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like