# Brown v. Angelone

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 28, 2002 · 30 F. App'x 139

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1006768

## Case

- **Full name:** Billy Joe BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 28, 2002
- **Citations:** 30 F. App'x 139
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkins, Michael, Motz
- **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/1006768

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7746

BILLY JOE BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-01-273-2)

Submitted: February 7, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Joe Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:

Billy Joe Brown 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 district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Brown v. Angelone, No. CA-01-273-2 (E.D.

Va. Oct. 2, 2001). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1006768. Public record. Not legal advice.