Filed: Jul. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6302 JAMES WILLIAM PAYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-273-HAR) Submitted: July 2, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6302 JAMES WILLIAM PAYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-273-HAR) Submitted: July 2, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6302 JAMES WILLIAM PAYNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-273-HAR) Submitted: July 2, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James William Payne, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Michelle Nicol Levister, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Payne v. Smith, No. CA-95-273-HAR (D. Md. Feb. 20, 1996). 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 * As amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. 2