Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

James G. Wallace v. William Smith Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 94-6310 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6310 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 29, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 30 F.3d 132 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James G. WALLACE, Petitioner Appellant, v. William SMITH; Attorney General Of The State Of Maryland, Respondents Appellees. No. 94-6310. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 28, 1994. Decided: July 29, 19
More

30 F.3d 132

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James G. WALLACE, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
William SMITH; Attorney General Of The State Of Maryland,
Respondents Appellees.

No. 94-6310.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 1994.
Decided: July 29, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-3009-HAR)

James G. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se.

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

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Wallace v. Smith, No. CA-93-3009-HAR (D. Md. Mar. 16, 1994). 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

*

We deny Appellant's motion for the 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