Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lamb v. Sacchet, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Todd William Lamb of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its prior opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-02-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6918

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Todd William Lamb of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its prior opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    Lamb v. Sacchet, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Todd William Lamb of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its prior opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6918

    TODD WILLIAM LAMB,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-95-1954-AW)
    Submitted:

    January 23, 1997

    Decided:

    February 4, 1997

    Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Todd William Lamb, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Kathryn Grill Graeff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Todd William Lamb appeals the district court's order denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1994), amended
    by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.
    No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a
    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Lamb v. Sacchet, No. CA-95-1954-AW (D.
    Md. May 14, 1996). 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like