Andrew C. Hosley v. P.L. Huffman

Fourth Circuit

Andrew C. Hosley v. P.L. Huffman

17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12212, 1994 WL 65197

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1994

Docket93-6873

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.3d 1434 (Andrew C. Hosley v. P.L. Huffman) 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

Andrew C. Hosley v. P.L. Huffman, 17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12212, 1994 WL 65197 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

17 F.3d 1434
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Andrew C. HOSLEY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
P.L. HUFFMAN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-6873.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 1993.
Decided March 3, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-93-592-R)

Andrew C. Hosley, pro se.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, PHILLIPS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from 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. Hosley v. Huffman, No. CA-93-592-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 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.

*

To the extent that Hosley's complaint can be construed as raising 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claims, we agree with the district court that they are frivolous for the reasons stated below

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

17 F.3d 1434
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Andrew C. HOSLEY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
P.L. HUFFMAN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-6873.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 1993.
Decided March 3, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-93-592-R)

Andrew C. Hosley, pro se.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, PHILLIPS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from 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. Hosley v. Huffman, No. CA-93-592-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 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.

*

To the extent that Hosley's complaint can be construed as raising 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claims, we agree with the district court that they are frivolous for the reasons stated below

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12212, 1994 WL 65197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-c-hosley-v-pl-huffman-ca4-1994.