Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Willard J. Rice v. Lloyd L. Waters, Warden the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 92-6377 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6377 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 15, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 966 F.2d 1443 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Willard J. RICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lloyd L. WATERS, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-6377. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 1, 1992 Decided
More

966 F.2d 1443

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Willard J. RICE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Lloyd L. WATERS, Warden; The Attorney General of the State
of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-6377.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 15, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-92-199-JFM)

Willard J. Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

George Albert Eichhorn, III, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Willard J. Rice seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Rice v. Waters, No. CA-92-199-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 1992). 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer