Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Kelly, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Samuel Kelly appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. While a recent Supreme Court decision overturned relevant Fourth Circuit precedent, this was not grounds for relief for Kelly because he did not raise the relevant claim in initial proceedings and ineffective assistance of counsel did not establish cause for the default.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-07-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6104

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Samuel Kelly appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. While a recent Supreme Court decision overturned relevant Fourth Circuit precedent, this was not grounds for relief for Kelly because he did not raise the relevant claim in initial proceedings and ineffective assistance of counsel did not establish cause for the default.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Kelly, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Samuel Kelly appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. While a recent Supreme Court decision overturned relevant Fourth Circuit precedent, this was not grounds for relief for Kelly because he did not raise the relevant claim in initial proceedings and ineffective assistance of counsel did not establish cause for the default.

    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. 99-6104

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SAMUEL BENJAMIN KELLY, a/k/a Tiz,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CR-94-163, CA-98-569-2)

    Submitted:

    June 29, 1999

    Decided:

    July 15, 1999

    Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Samuel Benjamin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Samuel Benjamin Kelly seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    1999).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a cer-

    tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on


    the reasoning of the district court.*

    See United States v. Kelly,

    Nos. CR-94-163; CA-98-569-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 1998).

    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

    We are mindful that the Supreme Courts recent decision in


    Richardson v. United States, 119 S.Ct. 1707 (1999), overrules our
    holding in United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir. 1996),
    cited by the district court, that the jury need not agree on the
    specific drug offenses committed by a defendant to find him guilty
    of a continuing criminal enterprise. Richardson is of no avail to
    Kelly, however, because he did not raise the jury unanimity claim
    prior to collateral proceedings, and the district properly rejected
    his claim that ineffective assistance of counsel constituted cause
    for his default. See United States v. McNamara, 74 F.2d 514, 51617 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding counsel not ineffective for failing to
    object to jury instruction that comported with circuit law
    applicable at the time).
    2

    You might also like