Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lawrence Tearl v. Sewall Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 94-6618 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6618 Visitors: 54
Filed: Mar. 03, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 48 F.3d 1217 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Lawrence TEARL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sewall SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-6618. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: Feb.16, 1995 Decided: March 3
More

48 F.3d 1217
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Lawrence TEARL, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Sewall SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents--Appellees.

No. 94-6618.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb.16, 1995
Decided: March 3, 1995

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-91-2749-N)

Lawrence Tearl, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal 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 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. Tearl v. Smith, No. CA-91-2749-N (D. Md. May 24, 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.

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