Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

981 F.2d 1250

Docket No. 92-6875.

William Bryant, Jr. v. Kenneth E. Taylor, Warden J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: November 13, 1992 Decided: December 16, 1992

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-12-16

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on David A. Boetcher v. Keith A. Ivey Claudette B. Ivey Lisa D. Ivey-Jensen Richard A. Jensen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-12-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2014

1 district ·

10199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-2075-K)

William Bryant, Jr., 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 PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

¶1

William Bryant, Jr., appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). 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.* Bryant v. Taylor, No. CA-91-2075-K (D. Md. July 8, 1992). We deny Bryant's motion for 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

*

We also deny Bryant's motion for appointment of counsel

/981/f2d/1250 · .json · Public domain