TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ronnie M. Keith v. S.R. Witowski, State of South Carolina Attorney General of South Carolina

Keith v. S.R. Witowski, State of S.C. Attorney Gen. of S.C., 929 F.2d 693 (4th Cir. 1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 25, 1991
Docket
No. 91-6273
Citations
929 F.2d 6931991 WL 386751991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11922
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

929 F.2d 693 Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ronnie M. KEITH, v. S.R. WITOWSKI, State of South Carolina; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6273.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 1991. Decided March 25, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-89-2949-K)

Ronnie M. Keith, appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, S.C., for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Ronnie M. Keith seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 . Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Keith v. Witowski, CA-89-2949-K (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 1991). 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.

2

DISMISSED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list