Clifton Footes, Jr. v. William L. Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Clifton Footes, Jr. v. William L. Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

52 F.3d 321, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17571, 1995 WL 215448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1995

Docket95-6147

StatusPublished

This text of 52 F.3d 321 (Clifton Footes, Jr. v. William L. Smith, 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

Clifton Footes, Jr. v. William L. Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 52 F.3d 321, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17571, 1995 WL 215448 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

52 F.3d 321
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Clifton FOOTES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William L. SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of The State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6147.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 15, 1995.
Decided: April 12, 1995.

Clifton Footes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ellen Barbera, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before RUSSELL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Footes v. Smith, No. CA-93-3925-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 3, 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.

AFFIRMED.

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

52 F.3d 321
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

Clifton FOOTES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William L. SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of The State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6147.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 15, 1995.
Decided: April 12, 1995.

Clifton Footes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ellen Barbera, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before RUSSELL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Footes v. Smith, No. CA-93-3925-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 3, 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.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 F.3d 321, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17571, 1995 WL 215448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifton-footes-jr-v-william-l-smith-warden-attorne-ca4-1995.