Filed: Aug. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6059 JOHN H. GANGE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL D. BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL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. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-3901-WMN) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6059 JOHN H. GANGE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL D. BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL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. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-3901-WMN) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6059
JOHN H. GANGE, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EARL D. 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. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-95-3901-WMN)
Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997
Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Gange, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ellen Barbera, Assis-
tant Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current
version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have
reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for ap-
pointment of counsel, deny a certificate of probable cause to ap-
peal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
Gange v. Beshears, No. CA-95-3901-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 27, 1996). See
Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997)
(No. 96-6298). 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