Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Winslow v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Antonio Winslow's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. While allowing Winslow to proceed in forma pauperis, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its prior denial of Winslow's habeas petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-04-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7433

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Antonio Winslow's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. While allowing Winslow to proceed in forma pauperis, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its prior denial of Winslow's habeas petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Winslow v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Antonio Winslow's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. While allowing Winslow to proceed in forma pauperis, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its prior denial of Winslow's habeas petition.

    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. 98-7433

    ANTONIO DOUGLAS WINSLOW, a/k/a Troy Winslow,


    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-97-1095-2)

    Submitted:

    April 15, 1999

    Decided:

    April 21, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Antonio Douglas Winslow, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio Winslow seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1998).

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate


    judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant
    Winslow leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
    district court.

    See Winslow v. Angelone, No. CA-97-1095-2 (E.D.

    Va. Sept. 22, 1998).

    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