Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Harvey P. Short v. William L. Smith, Warden Attorney General of The State of Maryland, 59 F.3d 167, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views1 page
    Harvey Short appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which he sought relief from his conviction. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Harvey Short's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-06-27 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 59 F.3d 167 Docket: 95-6385

    Original Title

    Harvey P. Short v. William L. Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 59 F.3d 167, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Harvey Short appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which he sought relief from his conviction. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Harvey Short's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views1 page

    Harvey P. Short v. William L. Smith, Warden Attorney General of The State of Maryland, 59 F.3d 167, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Harvey Short appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which he sought relief from his conviction. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Harvey Short's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    59 F.

    3d 167
    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.

    Harvey P. SHORT, Petitioner--Appellant,


    v.
    William L. SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
    Maryland, Respondents--Appellees.
    No. 95-6385.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: May 18, 1995.
    Decided: June 27, 1995.

    Harvey P. Short, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
    General, Ann Norman Bosse, Michelle Nicol Levister, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for
    Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
    district court. Short v. Smith, No. CA-94-2668-H (D. Md. Feb. 9, 1995). 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