Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7942 SCOTT LEWIS RENDELMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK KEOHANE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3110-JFM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7942 SCOTT LEWIS RENDELMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK KEOHANE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3110-JFM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7942
SCOTT LEWIS RENDELMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PATRICK KEOHANE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-3110-JFM)
Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals 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.
Rendelman v. Keohane, No. CA-95-3110-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 8, 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