Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Patrick C. Lynn v. State of South Carolina, Patrick C. Lynn v. State of South Carolina, 93-6664 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6664 Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 19, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 36 F.3d 1093 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Patrick C. LYNN, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent Appellee. Patrick C. LYNN, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent Appellee. Nos. 93-6664, 93-6694. United States Court of Appeals,
More

36 F.3d 1093

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Patrick C. LYNN, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent Appellee.
Patrick C. LYNN, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent Appellee.

Nos. 93-6664, 93-6694.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 24, 1994
Decided: Sept. 19, 1994.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-86-2326)

Patrick C. Lynn, Appellant Pro Se.

Russell White Templeton, Columbia, SC, for Appellee.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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.* Lynn v. South Carolina, No. CA-86-2326 (D.S.C. May 13, 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.

*

We also deny Appellant's motion to appoint appellate counsel

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