Filed: Jan. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6488 LAMONT EUGENE COLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF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-97-3846-H) Submitted: December 29, 1998 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6488 LAMONT EUGENE COLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF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-97-3846-H) Submitted: December 29, 1998 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6488 LAMONT EUGENE COLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF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-97-3846-H) Submitted: December 29, 1998 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Eugene Colbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifi- cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Colbert v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-3846-H (D. Md. Mar. 24, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2