Michael Sindram v. Arthur M. Ahalt Stuart F. Johnson Robert C. Murphy Alexander Williams, Jr. State of Maryland

892 F.2d 75
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 25, 1990
Docket89-6687
StatusUnpublished

This text of 892 F.2d 75 (Michael Sindram v. Arthur M. Ahalt Stuart F. Johnson Robert C. Murphy Alexander Williams, Jr. 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
Michael Sindram v. Arthur M. Ahalt Stuart F. Johnson Robert C. Murphy Alexander Williams, Jr. State of Maryland, 892 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

892 F.2d 75

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael SINDRAM, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Arthur M. AHALT; Stuart F. Johnson; Robert C. Murphy;
Alexander Williams, Jr.; State of Maryland,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 89-6687.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 29, 1989.
Decided: Dec. 8, 1989.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1990.

Michael Sindram, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, James Goldsborough Klair, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber (Office of the Attorney General), for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Sindram appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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. Sindram v. Ahalt, C/A No. 89-661-HAR (D.Md. Apr. 21, 1989). 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

Related

United States v. Rahman (Habibur)
892 F.2d 75 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
892 F.2d 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-sindram-v-arthur-m-ahalt-stuart-f-johnson--ca4-1990.