Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    United States v. Beasley, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Curtis Beasley's motion for a new trial. Beasley had filed the motion based on newly discovered evidence, but it was untimely under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1). The appeals court reviewed the record and concluded the motion was not filed within the required time period. It therefore affirmed the district court's order denying the new trial motion.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Beasley, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Curtis Beasley's motion for a new trial. Beasley had filed the motion based on newly discovered evidence, but it was untimely under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1). The appeals court reviewed the record and concluded the motion was not filed within the required time period. It therefore affirmed the district court's order denying the new trial motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7441

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Curtis Beasley's motion for a new trial. Beasley had filed the motion based on newly discovered evidence, but it was untimely under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1). The appeals court reviewed the record and concluded the motion was not filed within the required time period. It therefore affirmed the district court's order denying the new trial motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Beasley, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Curtis Beasley's motion for a new trial. Beasley had filed the motion based on newly discovered evidence, but it was untimely under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1). The appeals court reviewed the record and concluded the motion was not filed within the required time period. It therefore affirmed the district court's order denying the new trial motion.

    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. 07-7441

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CURTIS A. BEASLEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH)

    Submitted:

    February 21, 2008

    Decided:

    February 26, 2008

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Curtis A. Beasley, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Curtis A. Beasley appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered
    evidence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.

    We have reviewed the record

    and conclude that Beasleys motion was untimely filed. See Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 33(b)(1).
    order.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like