Filed: Jan. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7819 ARCHIE JEROME CHADWICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARCHIE GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-2174-S) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7819 ARCHIE JEROME CHADWICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARCHIE GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-2174-S) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7819 ARCHIE JEROME CHADWICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARCHIE GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 95-2174-S) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Archie Jerome Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chadwick v. Gee, No. CA-95-2174-S (D. Md. Oct. 16, 1995). 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 2
