Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    United States v. Jackson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Adrian Howard Jackson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment that is void. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court also denied Jackson's alternative request to allow his pleadings to serve as a notice of appeal of the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Jackson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Adrian Howard Jackson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment that is void. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court also denied Jackson's alternative request to allow his pleadings to serve as a notice of appeal of the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-09-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6587

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Adrian Howard Jackson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment that is void. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court also denied Jackson's alternative request to allow his pleadings to serve as a notice of appeal of the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Jackson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Adrian Howard Jackson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment that is void. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court also denied Jackson's alternative request to allow his pleadings to serve as a notice of appeal of the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying relief.

    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. 07-6587

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ADRIAN HOWARD JACKSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (0:98-cr-01126-JFA)

    Submitted:

    September 11, 2007

    Decided:

    September 14, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Adrian Howard Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Adrian Howard Jackson appeals the district courts order
    denying his Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule
    60(b)(4) motion and alternatively to allow his pleadings to serve
    as a notice of appeal of the Rule 60(b) motion.
    the record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed

    Accordingly, we affirm

    for the reasons stated by the district court.

    United States v.

    Jackson, No. 0:98-cr-01126-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2007). 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