Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Clinton Taylor'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 reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its March 29, 1996 opinion. The appellate court determined oral arguments were not necessary because the case was adequately presented on existing court documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6860

    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 Clinton Taylor'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 reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its March 29, 1996 opinion. The appellate court determined oral arguments were not necessary because the case was adequately presented on existing court documents.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Clinton Taylor'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 reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its March 29, 1996 opinion. The appellate court determined oral arguments were not necessary because the case was adequately presented on existing court documents.

    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. 96-6860

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLINTON F. TAYLOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-91-58, CA-95-23-NN)
    Submitted:

    October 3, 1996

    Decided:

    October 15, 1996

    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Francis McQuaid Lawrence, ST. JOHN, BOWLING & LAWRENCE, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Harvey Lee Bryant, III, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988), 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 on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. Taylor, Nos. CR-91-58; CA-95-23-NN
    (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 1996). 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