Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Leak v. Galley, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Stephen Leak's appeal of the district court's denial of his petitions for habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Leak's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in its July 26, 2000 opinions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-11-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7227

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Stephen Leak's appeal of the district court's denial of his petitions for habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Leak's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in its July 26, 2000 opinions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    Leak v. Galley, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Stephen Leak's appeal of the district court's denial of his petitions for habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Leak's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in its July 26, 2000 opinions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-7227

    STEVEN B. LEAK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN P. GALLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    No. 00-7232

    STEVEN B. LEAK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN P. GALLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-1312-CCB, CA-97-1315-CCB)

    Submitted:

    October 26, 2000

    Decided:

    November 2, 2000

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Steven D. Campen, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellant. John Joseph
    Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, 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:
    Stephen B. Leak appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994
    & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's
    opinions and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a

    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See Leak v. Galley, Nos. CA-97-1312CCB; CA-97-1315-CCB (D. Md. July 26, 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

    Although the district courts orders are marked as filed


    on July 24, 2000, the district courts records show that they were
    entered on the docket sheet on July 26, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58
    and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
    that the orders were entered on the docket sheet that we take as
    the effective date of the district courts decision. See Wilson v.
    Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
    3

    You might also like