Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bolling v. Conroy, 00-6442 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6442 Visitors: 22
Filed: May 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6442 JERMAINE A. BOLLING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-3810-JFM) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jermaine A. Bolling, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6442 JERMAINE A. BOLLING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-3810-JFM) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jermaine A. Bolling, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Jason Frederick Trumpbour, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jermaine A. Bolling seeks to appeal the district court’s 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Bolling v. Conroy, No. CA-99- 3810-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2000). 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:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer