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)
01-6797•Joseph Lee Joyner v. J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden
01-6797Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 14, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6797
JOSEPH LEE JOYNER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00-
1119-AMD)
Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Lee Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Celia Anderson Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Lee Joyner 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 rea-
soning of the district court. Joyner v. Stouffer, No. CA-00-1119-
AMD (D. Md. Apr. 23, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials 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.