Willie J. Armstrong v. W. D. Salisbury, Superintendent, 427 F.2d 142 (6th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Willie J. Armstrong v. W. D. Salisbury, Superintendent, 427 F.2d 142 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Willie J. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
W. D. SALISBURY, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
20315_1.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jun 2, 1970.
Published opinion
427 F.2d 142
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8958
Willie J. Armstrong, in pro per., Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen., Stephen M. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.
Phillips, Edwards, Peck.
Published
PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the judgment of the District Court dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appellee has filed a motion to affirm the judgment under Rule 8 of the Rules of this Court. This Rule provides that the Court will receive a motion to affirm the judgment sought to be reviewed on the ground that it is manifest that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

It appears on the face of the record that appellant, who was found guilty by a jury on his plea of not guilty, has not perfected a delayed appeal under § 2953.-05, Ohio Revised Code. Therefore, he has not exhausted his available State court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mackey v. Koloski, 413 F.2d 1019 (6th Cir.).

The Court finds that the questions on which the judgment of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

The motion to affirm the judgment of the District Court is granted.