UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS R. CROWDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAWRENCE KELLEY; FRANK L.
                                                                      No. 99-1361
MONGE; PATRICIA S. CONNOR;
DOUGLAS SISK; JAMES A. DRACH;
JOHN MAYER; LEONARD GREEN,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CA-99-477-S)

Submitted: May 25, 1999

Decided: October 27, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Nicholas R. Crowder, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Nicholas R. Crowder appeals the district court's orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying
his motion for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the
record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. It
is not clear from the record whether Crowder's Maryland charges
were nolle prosequied under Md. R. Proc. § 4-247 (1998), or "stetted"
under Md. R. Proc. § 4-248 (1998). In either event, Crowder is not
entitled to relief. If the charges were nolle prosequied, Crowder is not
in custody for purposes of § 2241 relief. If the charges were stetted,
Crowder may be in custody for purposes of relief under § 2241, see
Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 

, 300-01 (1984).
However, he has failed to exhaust state remedies. See Braden v. 30th
Judicial Circuit Court, 

, 489-90 (1973). Crowder could
have opposed the State's motion to stet his case. Instead, Crowder
sought to have the charges dismissed with prejudice. Thus, if the
charges were stetted, Crowder must pursue his remaining state reme-
dies before pursuing federal habeas relief. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny the
following motions filed by Crowder seeking to: (1) compel the district
court to correct the record and remand the case; (2) stay Maryland
state court proceedings; (3) have an en banc hearing to compel the
clerk's office to submit properly filed pleadings; (4) correct a clearly
erroneous judgment; and (5) have an en banc review of motion to
correct a maliciously erroneous record on appeal. We also deny
Crowder's motion for oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    2