Case Name: Tony Lamon MOODY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-28
Citations: 24 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 01-6763
Parties: Tony Lamon MOODY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 24
Pages: 230–230

Head Matter:
Tony Lamon MOODY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 01-6763.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
Decided Jan. 28, 2002.
Tony Lamon Moody, Pro Se. Linwood - Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tony Lamon Moody appeals 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Moody v. Angelone, No. CA-99-1955-AM (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 10, 2001; entered Apr. 11, 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.
We note that the district court inadvertently failed to address Moody's claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence. Moody claims that Clayton Dillard revealed after the trial that he purchased the crack cocaine Moody was convicted of distributing from another source. Because we find that the Virginia courts correctly found that Moody failed to show that this evidence could not have been discovered until after the trial and failed to show that it could not have been secured for use at trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence, this claim is without merit. See Odum v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 123, 301 S.E.2d 145, 149 (1983) (setting out four-part test for courts to consider in ruling on a motion for a new trial).