Charles Edward Smith v. D.A. Garraghty, Warden Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 914 F.2d 1492 (4th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles Edward Smith v. D.A. Garraghty, Warden Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 914 F.2d 1492 (4th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rahmi v. Trumble (wvnd, 2011-12-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rahmi v. Trumble
N.D.W. Va. · 2011 · confidence medium
As previously discussed, a district court is “required to apply a clearly erroneous standard to [a] bankruptcy court’s findings of fact.” Shumate v. Shumate, 914 F.2d 1492, *2 (4th Cir.1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Edward Smith
v.
D.A. Garraghty, Warden Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia
90-6347.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 24, 1990.
914 F.2d 1492
Unpublished

914 F.2d 1492
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Charles Edward SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
D.A. GARRAGHTY, Warden; Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 90-6347.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 1990.
Decided Sept. 24, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (C/A No. 88-350-R).

Charles Edward Smith, appellant pro se.

Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Charles Edward Smith appeals an order of the district court which denied him an extension of time to file his notice of appeal. This Court, however, found his notice of appeal timely under Houston v. Lack, 56 U.S.L.W. 4728 (U.S. June 24, 1988) (No. 87-428), and decided the appeal on the merits. Smith v. Garraghty, No. 90-6307 (4th Cir. July 23, 1990) (unpublished). Because Smith has already received the relief he seeks here, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 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