Bantam v. Sacchett

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Bantam v. Sacchett

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6527

EDGAR EDWARD BANTAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND; JOSEPH P. SACCHET,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2392-WMN)

Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edgar Edward Bantam, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Rachel Marblestone Kamins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Edgar Edward Bantam seeks to appeal 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 opinion 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 Bantam v. Sacchett, No. CA-99-

2392-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2000); Williams v. Taylor,

120 S. Ct. 1495

(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

Reference

Status
Unpublished