Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jones v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Nicholas Warner Jones of a district court order denying relief on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-04-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7906

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Nicholas Warner Jones of a district court order denying relief on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    Jones v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Nicholas Warner Jones of a district court order denying relief on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-7906

    NICHOLAS WARNER JONES,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; RICHARD A. LANHAM,
    SR., Commissioner; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-932364-L)
    Submitted:

    April 16, 1998

    Decided:

    April 28, 1998

    Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Diane Elizabeth Keller, Assistant Attorney
    General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1994) (current
    version at 28 U.S.C.A. 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 certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
    Jones v. Smith, No. CA-93-2364-L (D. Md. Nov. 26, 1996). See Lindh
    v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No.
    96-6298). 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

    You might also like