Roberts v. Curran
Roberts v. Curran
Opinion
Rickey Bernard Roberts appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roberts v. Curran, No. CA-96-478-AMD (D.Md. Aug. 21, 2002); see also Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336-37, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). 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.
AFFIRMED.
The district court granted Roberts’ motion for a certificate of appealability on September 21, 2002. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (requiring certificate as prerequisite to appeal from denial of writ). We need not decide whether Roberts properly should have requested a certificate of probable cause to appeal because the standard for both are the same. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) ("Except for substituting the word ‘constitutional’ for the word ‘federal,’ § 2253 is a codification of the [certificate of probable cause] standard.”).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.