Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Whittlesey v. Circuit Court MD, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition filed by James Louis Whittlesey under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The district court denied Whittlesey's petition for relief and his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Whittlesey v. Circuit Court MD, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition filed by James Louis Whittlesey under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The district court denied Whittlesey's petition for relief and his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6702

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition filed by James Louis Whittlesey under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The district court denied Whittlesey's petition for relief and his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    7 views2 pages

    Whittlesey v. Circuit Court MD, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition filed by James Louis Whittlesey under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The district court denied Whittlesey's petition for relief and his motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6702

    JAMES LOUIS
    Pehringer,

    WHITTLESEY, a/k/a Frank Wayne


    Petitioner - Appellant,

    versus
    CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR BALTIMORE
    COUNTY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-97-874-JFM)
    Submitted:

    February 12, 1998

    Decided:

    February 26, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Louis Whittlesey, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
    1997) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Whittlesey v. Circuit Court of Maryland, No. CA-97-874-JFM
    (D. Md. Mar. 31 & May 6, 1997). 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

    You might also like