Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Frank, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Daniel Lee Frank's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court that Frank's claims were either already raised and rejected on direct appeal, or were nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6896

    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 dismissed Daniel Lee Frank's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court that Frank's claims were either already raised and rejected on direct appeal, or were nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Frank, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Daniel Lee Frank's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court that Frank's claims were either already raised and rejected on direct appeal, or were nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    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. 96-6896

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DANIEL LEE FRANK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-93-165, CA-96-234-2)
    Submitted:

    December 12, 1996

    Decided:

    December 19, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Daniel Lee Frank, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Michael James
    Cummings, COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Virginia Beach,
    Virginia, 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. 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially
    on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Frank,
    Nos. CR-93-165; CA-96-234-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 1996). Appellants'
    claims were either raised and rejected on direct appeal, Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 429 U.S. 863 (1976), or were nonconstitutional claims that
    could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. Stone v.
    Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). 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