Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Stoddard's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. As the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented, the appellate court dispensed with oral arguments. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Stoddard's § 2255 motion based on the reasoning provided by the district court and a relevant Supreme Court precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7784

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Stoddard's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. As the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented, the appellate court dispensed with oral arguments. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Stoddard's § 2255 motion based on the reasoning provided by the district court and a relevant Supreme Court precedent.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Stoddard's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. As the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented, the appellate court dispensed with oral arguments. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Stoddard's § 2255 motion based on the reasoning provided by the district court and a relevant Supreme Court precedent.

    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. 97-7784

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KEVIN L. STODDARD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
    by designation. (CR-93-437-DKC, CA-96-429-HNM)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 1998

    Decided:

    October 19, 1998

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Kevin L. Stoddard, Appellant Pro Se. William Warren Hamel, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin L. Stoddard appeals the district courts order denying
    his motion filed under

    28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

    1998). We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion
    and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stoddard, Nos. CR93-437-DKC; CA-96-429-HNM (D. Md. Oct. 24, 1997); see also Lindh v.
    Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like