The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-7778•John Norfleet Ward, Iii v. RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
01-7778Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 5, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7778
JOHN NORFLEET WARD, III,
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 Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-00-394-2)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Norfleet Ward, III, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
John Norfleet Ward, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recom-
mendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. Ward v. Angelone, No. CA-00-394-2
(E.D. Va., filed Aug. 29, 2001; entered Aug. 30, 2001). Further,
while we grant Ward’s motion “to include newly discovered evidence
for review with appeal,” those materials do not alter our conclu-
sion. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.