Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

92-6159 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6159 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 11, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 966 F.2d 1444 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Alton Gordon SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. WILLIAMS, Warden; Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
More

966 F.2d 1444

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Alton Gordon SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David A. WILLIAMS, Warden; Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General
of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Richard
Thornburgh, Attorney General of the
United States of America,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6159.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 11, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.

Alton Gordon Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Eileen G. Coffey, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jerry Paul Slonaker, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Alton Gordon Smith appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Williams, Nos. CR-77-50-4, CA-91-122-4 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 3, 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.

AFFIRMED

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