Case Name: Lebon B. WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David R. BLUMBERG, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland; John A. Rowley, Acting Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees, and Frank C. Sizer, Jr., Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 259 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 07-7139
Parties: Lebon B. WALKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David R. BLUMBERG, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland; John A. Rowley, Acting Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees, and Frank C. Sizer, Jr., Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Lebon B. WALKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David R. BLUMBERG, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland; John A. Rowley, Acting Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees, and Frank C. Sizer, Jr., Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction, Respondent.
No. 07-7139.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 21, 2007.
Gary Eugene Bair, Rachel Marblestone Kamins, Bennett & Bair, LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lebon B. Walker seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his "Motion to Redate Order and Memorandum Opinion" and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.