Filed: Jan. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6984 ROWLAND HUDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-334-CCB) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6984 ROWLAND HUDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-334-CCB) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6984 ROWLAND HUDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-334-CCB) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rowland Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attor- ney 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rowland Hudson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hudson v. Corcoran, No. CA-98-334-CCB (D. Md. June 11, 1998). We 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. DISMISSED 2