USCA4 Appeal: 21-6468 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/02/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6468

PAUL MARTIN HURST,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WALTER WEST; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02411-TDC)

Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: November 2, 2022

Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Michael E. Lawlor, BRENNAN MCKENNA & LAWLOR, CHTD., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Jer Welter, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6468 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/02/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Martin Hurst appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of

whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by providing incorrect advice or

failing to correct the trial court’s inaccurate statements of law regarding Hurst’s eligibility

for parole. Accordingly, we review de novo the district court’s denial habeas relief. Long

v. Hooks,

, 457 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc).

Where a state court has already adjudicated the merits of a claim raised in a § 2254

petition, a federal court may not grant habeas relief unless the state court decision was

“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

(d). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s

conclusion that the state habeas court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, law that has been clearly established by the Supreme Court. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s order. Hurst v. West, No. 8:17-cv-02411-TDC (D. Md.

Mar. 11, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2