Samuel Cato Gilbert v. John P. Galley Attorney General of the State of Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Samuel Cato Gilbert v. John P. Galley Attorney General of the State of Maryland

16 F.3d 409, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7283, 1994 WL 19935

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 1994

Docket93-6809

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 409 (Samuel Cato Gilbert v. John P. Galley 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

Samuel Cato Gilbert v. John P. Galley Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 16 F.3d 409, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7283, 1994 WL 19935 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

16 F.3d 409
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Samuel Cato GILBERT, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
John P. GALLEY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland,
Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-6809.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 27, 1993
Decided: Jan. 27, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-93-1430-JFM)

Samuel Cato Gilbert, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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. Gilbert v. Galley, No. CA-93-1430-JFM (D. Md. July 16, 1993). 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

16 F.3d 409
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

Samuel Cato GILBERT, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
John P. GALLEY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland,
Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-6809.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 27, 1993
Decided: Jan. 27, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-93-1430-JFM)

Samuel Cato Gilbert, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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. Gilbert v. Galley, No. CA-93-1430-JFM (D. Md. July 16, 1993). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F.3d 409, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7283, 1994 WL 19935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-cato-gilbert-v-john-p-galley-attorney-gener-ca4-1994.