Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harney v. Conroy, 01-7263 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7263 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 15, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7263 DANIEL SCOTT HARNEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 1008-MJG) Submitted: December 26, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7263 DANIEL SCOTT HARNEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 1008-MJG) Submitted: December 26, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Scott Harney, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Daniel Scott Harney seeks to appeal 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. Harney v. Conroy, No. CA-00-1008-MJG (D. Md. filed July 18, 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
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