Filed: Nov. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7375 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS, Warden, Maryland Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-2923-S) Submitted: October 18, 2002 Decided: November 8, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7375 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS, Warden, Maryland Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-2923-S) Submitted: October 18, 2002 Decided: November 8, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7375
KELVIN J. MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LLOYD WATERS, Warden, Maryland Correctional
Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.
(CA-02-2923-S)
Submitted: October 18, 2002 Decided: November 8, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin J. Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Miles has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2000); Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 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