Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Freddie Lewis Cullens, Petitioner-appellant, v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner; Attorney General of Southcarolina, Respondents-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 902 F.2d 27Unpublished Disposition
Submitted April 2, 1990.Decided April 13, 1990.Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied May 15, 1990
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Karen L. Henderson, District Judge. (C/A Nos. 88-1186-J, 88-1910-J, 88-1911-J, 88-1912-J)
Freddie Lewis Cullens, appellant pro se.
Frank Louis Valenta, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, S.C., for appellees.
D.S.C.
DISMISSED.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Freddie Lewis Cullens 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 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.* Cullens v. Evatt, C/A Nos. 88-1186-J, 88-1910-J, 88-1911-J, 88-1912-J (D.S.C. Jan. 9, 1990). 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