Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    United States v. Robert Garfield McKeithan, 96 F.3d 1440, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an unpublished appellate court opinion from 1996 dismissing an appeal from a denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellant was Robert Garfield McKeithan and the case numbers were 96-6411, CR-91-106-R, and CA-95-851.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Robert Garfield McKeithan, 96 F.3d 1440, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views1 page
    The document is an unpublished appellate court opinion from 1996 dismissing an appeal from a denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellant was Robert Garfield McKeithan and the case numbers were 96-6411, CR-91-106-R, and CA-95-851.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-09-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 96 F.3d 1440 Docket: 96-6411

    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    The document is an unpublished appellate court opinion from 1996 dismissing an appeal from a denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellant was Robert Garfield McKeithan and the case numbers were 96-6411, CR-91-106-R, and CA-95-851.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views1 page

    United States v. Robert Garfield McKeithan, 96 F.3d 1440, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an unpublished appellate court opinion from 1996 dismissing an appeal from a denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellant was Robert Garfield McKeithan and the case numbers were 96-6411, CR-91-106-R, and CA-95-851.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    96 F.

    3d 1440

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Robert Garfield McKEITHAN, Defendant--Appellant.
    No. 96-6411.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Aug. 22, 1996.
    Decided Sept. 4, 1996.
    1

    Robert Garfield McKeithan, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville Douglass, Robert
    William Jaspen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (1988) motion. 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. McKeithan,
    Nos. CR-91-106-R; CA-95-851 (E.D.Va. Mar. 4, 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