Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McAllister v. Hutchinson, 01-7956 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7956 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7956 MARIO MCALLISTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD HUTCHINSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE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-01-1644-S) Submitted: March 12, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 01-7956



MARIO MCALLISTER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD HUTCHINSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 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-01-1644-S)


Submitted:   March 12, 2002                 Decided:   March 27, 2002


Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mario McAllister, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Mario McAllister 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. See McAllister v. Hutchinson, No.

CA-01-1644-S (D. Md. Oct. 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer