UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LOUIS HENDERSON BROOKS,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
                                                                       No. 97-6143
EUGENE NUTH; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(CA-94-3381-DKC)

Argued: April 9, 1998

Decided: May 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Steven Frederick Reich, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rachel Marblestone
Kamins, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees. ON BRIEF: James K. Bredar, Federal Public
Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General of Maryland, Criminal Appeals Division, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-
lees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Louis H. Brooks appeals the district court's order denying him
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a cer-
tificate of appealability and ordered the filing of formal briefs and
argument.

Brooks contends on appeal that in accepting his guilty plea, the
state trial court misadvised Brooks as to the intent element of
attempted first-degree murder under Maryland law. Brooks argues
that when he presented himself to the court to enter an Alford plea,
the court, in accepting his plea, advised Brooks that if he went to trial,
he could be convicted upon proof that he had committed an attempted
felony murder. This was a misstatement of Maryland law. Accord-
ingly, Brooks contends that his guilty plea was unknowing and invol-
untary because the misadvice undermined his ability to make a
voluntary and intelligent choice among the options available to him.

We have carefully reviewed the record and the district court's opin-
ion, which adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and
we have considered fully the arguments of counsel. Our review per-
suades us that the district court did not err. The district court con-
cluded that Brooks received real notice of the true nature of the
charges against him and an accurate description of the critical ele-
ments of attempted first-degree murder under Maryland law and that
the one passing misstatement by the trial court after Brooks had
already decided to plead guilty did not render his plea involuntary nor

                     2
deny him the intelligent choice from among the alternative courses of
action open to him. The court also found that Brooks' trial counsel,
in providing advice, was not ineffective under Strickland v.
Washington, 

(1984). For the reasons given by the dis-
trict court, Brooks v. Nuth, Civil Action No. DKC 94-3381 (D. Md.
Dec. 26, 1996), we affirm.

AFFIRMED

                    3