Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gordon Gaskins v. William L. Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 94-7389 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7389 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 22, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 50 F.3d 6 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Gordon GASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-7389. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 19, 1995 Decided Feb. 22
More

50 F.3d 6

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 94-7389.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995
Decided Feb. 22, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-1626)

Gordon Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Tarra DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, 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. Gaskins v. Smith, No. CA-94-1626 (D. Md. Oct. 25, 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