Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Watkins v. Sacchet, 01-6322 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6322 Visitors: 49
Filed: Apr. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6322 DAVID WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH P. SACCHET; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 00-2545-CCB) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6322 DAVID WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH P. SACCHET; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 00-2545-CCB) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Watkins v. Sacchet, No. CA-00-2545-CCB (D. Md. filed Jan. 30, 2001, entered Jan. 31, 2001; filed and entered Feb. 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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