Pete Nick Kosmos, Jr. v. James N. Rollins, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Maryland

911 F.2d 723, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 14326, 1990 WL 118742
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 17, 1990
Docket89-7629
StatusUnpublished

This text of 911 F.2d 723 (Pete Nick Kosmos, Jr. v. James N. Rollins, 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
Pete Nick Kosmos, Jr. v. James N. Rollins, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 911 F.2d 723, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 14326, 1990 WL 118742 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

911 F.2d 723
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Pete Nick KOSMOS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
James N. ROLLINS, Warden, Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 89-7629.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 13, 1990.
Decided Aug. 17, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Norman P. Ramsey, District Judge. (C/A No. 88-2980-R)

Pete Nick Kosmos, Jr., appellant pro se.

Ann N. Bosse, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pete Nick Kosmos, Jr., appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Kosmos v. Rollins, C/A No. 88-2980-R (D.Md. May 10, 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
911 F.2d 723, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 14326, 1990 WL 118742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pete-nick-kosmos-jr-v-james-n-rollins-warden-attor-ca4-1990.