Filed: Jan. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7517 GARY E. THORPE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT KUPEC; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-2439-S) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7517 GARY E. THORPE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT KUPEC; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-2439-S) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7517 GARY E. THORPE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT KUPEC; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-2439-S) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary E. Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary E. Thorpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). 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 reasoning of the district court. Thorpe v. Kupec, No. CA-01-2439-S (D. Md. filed Aug. 22, 2001; entered Aug. 23, 2001). 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
