Melvin Hill, A/k/a Marvin Hill, A/k/a Melvin Hill Taylor,petitioner-appellant, v. Bishop L. Robinson, Secretary of the Department of Publicsafety and Correctional Services; Eugene M. Nuth,warden, Maryland, Correctionalinstitution-jessup,respondents-appellees.melvin Hill, A/k/a Marvin Hill, A/k/a Melvin Hill Taylor,petitioner-appellant, v. Bishop L. Robinson, Secretary of the Department of Publicsafety and Correctional Services; Eugene M. Nuth,warden, Maryland Correctionalinstitution-jessup,respondents-appellees, 947 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 947 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1991) Submitted Oct. 19, 1991. Decided Oct. 28, 1991

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-3219-H)

Melvin Hill, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D. Md.

DISMISSED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, SPROUSE and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


In No. 91-7155, Melvin Hill seeks to appeal the district court's orders refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). The district court issued two orders disposing of Hill's claims, one on June 17 and one on July 11, 1991. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal from the first order on the reasoning of the district court. With respect to the second order, we dismiss the appeal on the district court's reasoning that trial counsel was not ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

In No. 91-7215, Hill appeals the district court's denial of his "motion to supplement the motion to reconsider." This appeal is similarly without merit and we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hill v. Robinson, No. CA-90-3219-H (D. Md. July 11, 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.

DISMISSED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.