Alfred Drakeford, Sr. v. George N. Martin, III Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

37 F.3d 1493, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34833, 1994 WL 580197
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 24, 1994
Docket94-6017
StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1493 (Alfred Drakeford, Sr. v. George N. Martin, III Attorney General of the State of South Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alfred Drakeford, Sr. v. George N. Martin, III Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 37 F.3d 1493, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34833, 1994 WL 580197 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

37 F.3d 1493
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Alfred DRAKEFORD, Sr., Petitioner Appellant,
v.
George N. MARTIN, III; Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina, Respondents Appellees.

No. 94-6017.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 26, 1994
Decided Oct. 24, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-91-1143-3-8BD)

Alfred Drakeford, Sr., appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, S.C..

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

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. Drakeford v. Martin, No. CA-91-1143-3-8BD (D.S.C. Nov. 29, 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 F.3d 1493, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34833, 1994 WL 580197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-drakeford-sr-v-george-n-martin-iii-attorney-ca4-1994.