Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Scott Lewis Rendelman v. Carlos Ortiz, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 93-6048 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6048 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 29, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 996 F.2d 1212 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Scott Lewis RENDELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlos ORTIZ, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-6048. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: March 1, 1993. Decide
More

996 F.2d 1212

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Scott Lewis RENDELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Carlos ORTIZ, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-6048.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 1, 1993.
Decided: June 29, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-92-2779-JFM)

Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ellen Barbera, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Scott Lewis Rendelman appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.s 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. Rendelman v. Ortiz, No. CA-92-2779-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 23, 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

*

Because the record contains Rendelman's response to the motion to dismiss, we deny his motion to stay proceedings in this Court

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