Jerome A. Singletary v. Sewall Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

60 F.3d 824, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24911, 1995 WL 381884
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 28, 1995
Docket95-6412
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 824 (Jerome A. Singletary v. Sewall 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
Jerome A. Singletary v. Sewall Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 60 F.3d 824, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24911, 1995 WL 381884 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

60 F.3d 824
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Jerome A. SINGLETARY, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Sewall SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents--Appellees.

No. 95-6412.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 28, 1995.

Jerome A. Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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. 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Singletary v. Smith, No. CA-94-1516-HAR (D. Md Feb. 22, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F.3d 824, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24911, 1995 WL 381884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-a-singletary-v-sewall-smith-warden-attorney-ca4-1995.