Filed: Mar. 31, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6071 EARL S. COUSINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 1075-L) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6071 EARL S. COUSINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 1075-L) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6071 EARL S. COUSINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 1075-L) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl S. Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earl S. Cousins appeals the district court’s order denying his § 2254 petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Cousins v. Corcoran, No. CA-97- 1075-L (D. Md. Jan. 5, 1999). We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
