Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6309 KEVIN ALEXANDER MOSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-2884-S) Submitted: October 28, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6309 KEVIN ALEXANDER MOSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-2884-S) Submitted: October 28, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6309 KEVIN ALEXANDER MOSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-2884-S) Submitted: October 28, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Alexander Moss, Appellant Pro Se. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting in part, and rejecting in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Moss v. Waters, No. CA-95-2884-S (D. Md. Feb. 14, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2