Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hickman v. Waters, 98-6333 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6333 Visitors: 40
Filed: Jun. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6333 MIKE DAVID HICKMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1189-H) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismisse
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 98-6333



MIKE DAVID HICKMAN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


LLOYD WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   Alexander Harvey II, Senior District
Judge. (CA-97-1189-H)


Submitted:   May 14, 1998                   Decided:   June 3, 1998


Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mike David Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court. Hickman v. Waters, No. CA-97-1189-H (D. Md.
Feb. 17, 1998). We decline to consider Appellant's claim that his

arrest warrant was invalid because this claim was not presented to

the district court and cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. See Spencer v. Murray, 
5 F.3d 758
, 761-62 (4th Cir. 1993).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional 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