Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Zawodny v. Beshears, 96-7766 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7766 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jan. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7766 RAYMOND ZAWODNY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1028-MJG) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7766 RAYMOND ZAWODNY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95- 1028-MJG) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Zawodny, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Raymond Zawodny 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Zawodny v. Beshears, No. CA-95- 1028-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 9, 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