Filed: Oct. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6476 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; RICHARD KASTENDIECK, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3566-JFM) Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and HAMIL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6476 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; RICHARD KASTENDIECK, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3566-JFM) Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILT..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6476
JAMES JOSEPH OWENS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND;
RICHARD KASTENDIECK, Assistant Attorney
General for the State of Maryland,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-3566-JFM)
Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 pursuant to 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 probable cause to appeal; to
the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny
such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. Owens v. Attorney Gen. of Maryland, No. CA-95-
3566-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 6, 1996).* We deny the motion for oral
argument and dispense with 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
*
Because Appellant's 1968 state sentence has expired, he is
not in custody for purposes of the federal habeas statutes. See
Maleng v. Cook,
490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989).
2