Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Charles H. McDaniel v. S. R. Witkowski, Warden Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 93-7154 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-7154 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 09, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 23 F.3d 402 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Charles H. McDANIEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-7154. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: April 21, 1994.
More

23 F.3d 402
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles H. McDANIEL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-7154.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 9, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-451)

Charles H. McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, 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 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. McDaniel v. Witkowski, No. CA-92-451 (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 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