Daniel Henderson Jones v. Glenn Haberlain, Warden

848 F.2d 191, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7087, 1988 WL 54133
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 1988
Docket88-5056
StatusUnpublished

This text of 848 F.2d 191 (Daniel Henderson Jones v. Glenn Haberlain, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daniel Henderson Jones v. Glenn Haberlain, Warden, 848 F.2d 191, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7087, 1988 WL 54133 (6th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

848 F.2d 191

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Daniel Henderson JONES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Glenn HABERLAIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-5056.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 25, 1988.

Before ENGEL, Chief Judge, DAVID NELSON, Circuit Judge, and DAVID S. PORTER, Senior District Judge.*

ORDER

The petitioner moves to proceed on the basis of his informal brief on appeal from the district court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After an examination of the record and the petitioner's brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

A Harlan County, Kentucky jury convicted the petitioner of rape. He received a life sentence. He filed four previous federal habeas corpus proceedings. The district court dismissed the present petition as an abuse of the writ. Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Sec. 2254 Cases. We agree with the conclusions of the district court for the reasons stated in the magistrate's report as adopted by the district court.

The motion to proceed on the basis of the informal brief is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed under Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, because the issues are not substantial and do not require oral argument.

*

The Honorable David S. Porter, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
848 F.2d 191, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7087, 1988 WL 54133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-henderson-jones-v-glenn-haberlain-warden-ca6-1988.