# Milano v. Jackson

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 29, 2001 · 18 F. App'x 67

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005189

## Case

- **Full name:** Frank Edmond MILANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 29, 2001
- **Citations:** 18 F. App'x 67
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkins, King, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005189

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6238

FRANK EDMOND MILANO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICK JACKSON, Superintendent, Brown Creek
Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-327-3-MU)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Edmond Milano, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Appleton Reeves,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Frank Edmond Milano seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Milano v. Jackson, No. CA-99-

327-3-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Jan. 4, 2001, entered Jan. 8, 2001). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005189. Public record. Not legal advice.