Unpublished Dispositioncharles Klypchak, Petitioner-appellant, v. Arthur Tate, Jr., Supt., Respondent-appellee, 831 F.2d 295 (6th Cir. 1987)
Annotate this CaseBefore BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., NATHANIEL R. JONES and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and record, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Petitioner is incarcerated in Ohio pursuant to a 1981 murder conviction. He filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 attacking the constitutionality of this conviction. The district court denied relief, finding petitioner's claims of ineffective trial counsel and insufficient evidence to be without merit. This appeal followed. On appeal the parties have briefed the issues, petitioner proceeding pro se.
Upon consideration we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's memorandum of opinion filed September 18, 1986. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
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.
