Ronnie M. Keith v. S.R. Witowski, 929 F.2d 693 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Ronnie M. Keith v. S.R. Witowski, 929 F.2d 693 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ronnie M. Keith
v.
S.R. Witowski, State of South Carolina Attorney General of South Carolina
91-6273.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 25, 1991.
Unpublished opinion
929 F.2d 693
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11922
1991 WL 38675
Unpublished

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Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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:

[*~693–694]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.