Keselica v. Van Evans

91 F. App'x 305
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 2, 2004
DocketNo. 04-6168
StatusPublished

This text of 91 F. App'x 305 (Keselica v. Van Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keselica v. Van Evans, 91 F. App'x 305 (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Michael G. Keselica seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keselica has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Keselica’s motions to supplement the record and for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 F. App'x 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keselica-v-van-evans-ca4-2004.