Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. LaBoy, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Raul LaBoy appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, failure of the government to file notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty, and violation of Rule 11. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied LaBoy's request for a certificate of appealability, denied his motion to appoint counsel, and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that LaBoy's claims lacked merit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7477

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Raul LaBoy appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, failure of the government to file notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty, and violation of Rule 11. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied LaBoy's request for a certificate of appealability, denied his motion to appoint counsel, and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that LaBoy's claims lacked merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views2 pages

    United States v. LaBoy, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raul LaBoy appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, failure of the government to file notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty, and violation of Rule 11. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied LaBoy's request for a certificate of appealability, denied his motion to appoint counsel, and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that LaBoy's claims lacked merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-7477

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAUL LABOY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-91-87-BO, CA-97-69-4-BO)
    Submitted:

    February 12, 1998

    Decided:

    March 4, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Raul LaBoy, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)
    with respect to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,
    the government's failure to file a notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty, and the district court's violation of Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 11. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
    and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel, and
    dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United
    States v. LaBoy, Nos. CR-91-87-BO; CA-97-69-4-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 4,
    1997). 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

    You might also like