Filed: Oct. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7278 JAMES A. BRITTINGHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY, W.C.I., Warden; ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, et al, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1326-S) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7278 JAMES A. BRITTINGHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY, W.C.I., Warden; ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, et al, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1326-S) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7278 JAMES A. BRITTINGHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY, W.C.I., Warden; ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, et al, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1326-S) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Brittingham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James A. Brittingham, Jr. 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 on the rea- soning of the district court. See Brittingham v. Galley, No. CA- 01-1326-S (D. Md. filed July 19, 2001; entered July 20, 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 2