Clarence Hence Green v. Earl Beshears, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19103, 1995 WL 318456
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 1995
Docket95-6172
StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.3d 61 (Clarence Hence Green v. Earl Beshears, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland) 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
Clarence Hence Green v. Earl Beshears, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19103, 1995 WL 318456 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

56 F.3d 61
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Clarence Hence GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Earl BESHEARS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6172.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 25, 1995.

Clarence Hence Green, appellant pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gary Eugene Bair, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, 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. 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. Green v. Beshears, No. CA-94-977 (D. Md. Jan. 25, 1995). 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)
56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19103, 1995 WL 318456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-hence-green-v-earl-beshears-warden-attorn-ca4-1995.