Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Turner v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Mark D. Turner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking relief. The district court denied relief on Turner's petition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and concluded that Turner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7601

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mark D. Turner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking relief. The district court denied relief on Turner's petition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and concluded that Turner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Turner v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Mark D. Turner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking relief. The district court denied relief on Turner's petition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and concluded that Turner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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. 02-7601

    MARK D. TURNER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-01-842-7)

    Submitted:

    February 20, 2003

    Decided:

    March 12, 2003

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Glenn Lee Berger, BERGER & THORNHILL, Altavista, Virginia, for


    Appellant. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, 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:
    Mark D. Turner, 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 conclude that Turner has not made
    a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See
    Turner v. Angelone, No. CA-01-842-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2002).
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal.

    See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (2000).

    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