Filed: Aug. 11, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7246 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-1139-AW) Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: August 11, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7246 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-1139-AW) Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: August 11, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7246 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-1139-AW) Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: August 11, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kelvin J. Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his post-judgment motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that Miles has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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. The motion to expedite consideration of the appeal is denied as moot. DISMISSED - 2 -