Court Opinion

ID: 988281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:50:30.315475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:24.600616
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 95-7420

ERIC SMITH,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

         versus

EUGENE NUTH, Warden; 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-95-1885-JFM)

Submitted:    January 11, 1996            Decided:   January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Smith v. Nuth, No. CA-95-1885-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 3, 1995). We
deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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

                                2