Scott Lewis Rendelman v. William Hendrick, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Scott Lewis Rendelman v. William Hendrick, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12217, 1994 WL 66040

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1994

Docket93-7265

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.3d 1434 (Scott Lewis Rendelman v. William Hendrick, 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

Scott Lewis Rendelman v. William Hendrick, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12217, 1994 WL 66040 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

17 F.3d 1434
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Scott Lewis RENDELMAN, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
William HENDRICK, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-7265.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided March 2, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.

Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, 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.* Rendelman v. Hendrick, No. CA-93-2980 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 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.

*

We deny Appellant's Motion to Correct Spelling

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

17 F.3d 1434
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

Scott Lewis RENDELMAN, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
William HENDRICK, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-7265.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided March 2, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.

Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, 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.* Rendelman v. Hendrick, No. CA-93-2980 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 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.

*

We deny Appellant's Motion to Correct Spelling

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F.3d 1434, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12217, 1994 WL 66040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-lewis-rendelman-v-william-hendrick-warden-at-ca4-1994.