Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Johnnie Harris's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his conviction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. As such, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for reconsideration without requiring oral arguments, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Johnnie Harris's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his conviction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. As such, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for reconsideration without requiring oral arguments, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7663

    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 Johnnie Harris's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his conviction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. As such, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for reconsideration without requiring oral arguments, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Johnnie Harris's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his conviction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. As such, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for reconsideration without requiring oral arguments, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 95-7663

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHNNIE HARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CR-92-88, CA-95-269-2)
    Submitted:

    March 21, 1996

    Decided:

    April 4, 1996

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnnie Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
    Charles Dee Griffith, Jr.,
    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:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-92-88; CA-95-269-2 (E.D.
    Va. Sept. 22, 1995). 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