Filed: Feb. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7445 GLENN V. RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-1085-WMN) Submitted: January 16, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7445 GLENN V. RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-1085-WMN) Submitted: January 16, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7445 GLENN V. RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-1085-WMN) Submitted: January 16, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn V. Rhodes, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attor- ney 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Glenn V. Rhodes 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 memorandum 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 Rhodes v. Conroy, No. CA-00- 1085-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 5, 2000). We 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