The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-6874•Jessie James Williams v. J. Michael Stouffer
00-6874Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 6, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6874
JESSIE JAMES WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00-
380-L)
Submitted: September 20, 2000 Decided: October 6, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Jason Frederick Trumpbour, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jessie James Williams 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 dis-
trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal
substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams
v. Stouffer, No. CA-00-380-L (D. Md. May 23, 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.