Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7682 ARTHUR WIGGINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-716-AW) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7682 ARTHUR WIGGINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-716-AW) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7682
ARTHUR WIGGINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-99-716-AW)
Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: March 19, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Attorney
General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARY-
LAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Wiggins 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
Wiggins’ motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. See Wiggins v. Hutchinson, No. CA-99-716-AW (D. Md.
Nov. 29, 1999). 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