Filed: Jan. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6420 ELLIS RICHARD DOUGLAS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 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-95-1280-JFM) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6420 ELLIS RICHARD DOUGLAS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 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-95-1280-JFM) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6420
ELLIS RICHARD DOUGLAS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF 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-95-1280-JFM)
Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ellis Richard Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr.,
Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 a certificate of probable
cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. Douglas v. Lanham, No. CA-95-1280-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 13,
1997). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June
23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment
of counsel and 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