Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Stanley E. Williams-Bey v. David Smith Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., 91-7350 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7350 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 12, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 7 F.3d 228 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Stanley E. WILLIAMS-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David SMITH; Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-7350. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: December 4, 1992. Decided: October 12, 1993. App
More

7 F.3d 228

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Stanley E. WILLIAMS-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
David SMITH; Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-7350.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 4, 1992.
Decided: October 12, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-91-287-R)

Stanley E. Williams-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Gayl Y. Branum-Carr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Stanley E. Williams-Bey seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.s 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williams-Bey v. Smith, No. CA-91-287-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 1991). 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

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