TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James N. Keeler, Jr. v. Robert H. Mauney, Warden State of South Carolina Attorney General of South Carolina

Keeler v. Mauney, 46 F.3d 1125 (4th Cir. 1995)
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
January 12, 1995
Docket
No. 93-6643
Citations
46 F.3d 11251995 WL 102271995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7005
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

46 F.3d 1125

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James N. KEELER, Jr., Petitioner Appellant, v. Robert H. MAUNEY, Warden; State of South Carolina; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-6643.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 1994. Decided Jan. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-2203-3-20).

James N. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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. Keeler v. Mauney, No. CA-92-2203-3-20 (D.S.C. May 27, 1994). * 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.

* Because of Keeler's procedural default, consideration of his ex post facto claim is precluded

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