Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Valentine v. Corcoran, 96-7642 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7642 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7642 TIMOTHY MAURICE VALENTINE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 96-760-CCB) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7642 TIMOTHY MAURICE VALENTINE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 96-760-CCB) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Maurice Valentine, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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 reasoning of the district court. Valentine v. Corcoran, No. CA- 96-760-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 4, 1996). 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 deci- sional 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