Melvin Joseph Carroll v. Edward W. Murray, Director

993 F.2d 1535, 1993 WL 179241
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 1993
Docket93-6106
StatusUnpublished

This text of 993 F.2d 1535 (Melvin Joseph Carroll v. Edward W. Murray, Director) 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
Melvin Joseph Carroll v. Edward W. Murray, Director, 993 F.2d 1535, 1993 WL 179241 (4th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

993 F.2d 1535

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Melvin Joseph CARROLL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-6106.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 3, 1993
Decided: May 26, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-271-R)

Melvin Joseph Carroll, Appellant Pro Se.

Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Joseph Carroll seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.s 2254 (1988). 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. Carroll v. Murray, No. CA-92-271-R (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 1992). 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

Related

Anthony L. Brown v. R. N. Briscoe, Medical Department
993 F.2d 1535 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
993 F.2d 1535, 1993 WL 179241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-joseph-carroll-v-edward-w-murray-director-ca4-1993.