Carl M. Richardson v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 4th Cir. 1993 . 2 PER CURIAM: Carl M. Richardson…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7317
CARL M. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-460-7)
Submitted: January 18, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl M. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

* To the extent that Richardson asserts new claims in his
informal brief in this court, we conclude those claims are either
procedurally defaulted or not cognizable for the first time on
appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).
2
PER CURIAM:
Carl M. Richardson appeals the district courts order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court. See Richardson v. Angelone, No. CA-99-460-7
(W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --