Filed: Apr. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6066 PENNELL NORMAN FOUST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3499-AW) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6066 PENNELL NORMAN FOUST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3499-AW) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6066 PENNELL NORMAN FOUST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3499-AW) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pennell Norman Foust, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pennell Foust appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief 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 the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Foust v. Stouffer, No. CA-00- 3499-AW (D. Md. filed Dec. 4, 2000; entered Dec. 6, 2000). We dis- pense 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
