Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Birchead v. Breshears, 96-6148 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6148 Visitors: 26
Filed: May 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6148 ALONZO KEVIN BIRCHEAD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BRESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-95-1063-L) Submitted: April 16, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6148 ALONZO KEVIN BIRCHEAD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BRESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-95-1063-L) Submitted: April 16, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alonzo Kevin Birchead, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We also find that even if a part of Appellant's insufficient evidence claim is not procedurally defaulted it is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Birchead v. Breshears, No. CA-95-1063-L (D. Md. Jan. 19, 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 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