Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Stanley v. Beshears, 96-7934 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7934 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7934 WILLIAM HERMAN STANLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 96-222-PJM) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7934 WILLIAM HERMAN STANLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 96-222-PJM) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Herman Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields- Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Herman Stanley appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Stanley v. Beshears, No. CA-96-222-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 1, 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. DISMISSED 2
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