UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7808 SHAWN PATRICK DICKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, and LISA RICHARDSON, Petitioner, versus MOLLY Q. RUHL, Clerk; 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-96- 3291-MJG) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Patrick Dickson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Shawn Dickson, a Maryland inmate, appeals the order of the district court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. The district court dismissed Dickson's claims as to his Montgomery County convictions on the merits and dismissed without prejudice Dickson's claims regarding his Prince George's County convictions so that he may file a separate § 2254 petition. We affirm on the modified grounds that Dickson failed to exhaust his state remedies. A prisoner petitioning for federal habeas relief must first present his claims to state courts and exhaust all available reme- dies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b), (c). Dickson's petition reveals that he failed to exhaust his available state court remedies in Maryland. See Maryland Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 645A (1992). We therefore grant a certificate of appeal- ability and modify the judgment to reflect dismissal without preju- dice for failure to exhaust state remedies and affirm the judgment as modified. 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. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 3