Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

William Bryant, Jr. v. Kenneth E. Taylor, Warden J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, 92-6875 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6875 Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 16, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 981 F.2d 1250 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. William BRYANT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. TAYLOR, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-6875. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: November 13, 1992 De
More

981 F.2d 1250

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William BRYANT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Kenneth E. TAYLOR, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-6875.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 13, 1992
Decided: December 16, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-2075-K)

William Bryant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

Affirmed.

Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

William Bryant, Jr., appeals from 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Bryant v. Taylor, No. CA-91-2075-K (D. Md. July 8, 1992). We deny Bryant's motion for 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

*

We also deny Bryant's motion for appointment of counsel

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