Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6658 CURLY EDWARD JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus W. O. FILBERT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2609-WMN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curly Edward Jones, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6658 CURLY EDWARD JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus W. O. FILBERT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2609-WMN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curly Edward Jones, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6658 CURLY EDWARD JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus W. O. FILBERT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2609-WMN) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curly Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Jason Frederick Trumpbour, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Curly Edward Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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. See Jones v. Filbert, No. CA-99-2609-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2