Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Smith v. Glendening, 02-7228 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7228 Visitors: 42
Filed: Dec. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7228 BERNARD SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor, Washington DC; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-02- 2071-L) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LU
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7228 BERNARD SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor, Washington DC; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-02- 2071-L) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Bernard Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Smith v. Glendening, No. CA- 02-2071-L (D. Md. filed August 13, 2002, entered Aug. 14, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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