Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael T. Gossett v. State of South Carolina Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 93-6243 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6243 Visitors: 1
Filed: May 27, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 993 F.2d 1537 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael T. GOSSETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-6243. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: May 3, 1993 Dec
More

993 F.2d 1537

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael T. GOSSETT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-6243.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 3, 1993
Decided: May 27, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-45-3AK)

Michael T. Gossett, Appellant Pro Se.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Michael T. Gossett seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Gossett v. South Carolina, No. CA-93-45-3AK (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 1993). 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