Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Simpson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alton Lee Simpson's motion claiming improper delegation of authority to set a restitution payment schedule and motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's rulings. Relief was not available to Simpson through a motion for reconsideration or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-10-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6291

    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 Alton Lee Simpson's motion claiming improper delegation of authority to set a restitution payment schedule and motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's rulings. Relief was not available to Simpson through a motion for reconsideration or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Simpson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alton Lee Simpson's motion claiming improper delegation of authority to set a restitution payment schedule and motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's rulings. Relief was not available to Simpson through a motion for reconsideration or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 06-6291

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALTON LEE SIMPSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:99-cr-00127-BO-3)

    Submitted:

    September 22, 2006

    Decided:

    October 13, 2006

    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alton Lee Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United
    States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alton Lee Simpson appeals the district courts orders
    denying

    his

    motion

    claiming

    the

    court

    improperly

    delegated

    authority to the Bureau of Prisons to set a payment schedule


    pursuant

    to

    the

    Inmate

    Financial

    Responsibility

    Program

    for

    repaying restitution and denying his motion for reconsideration.


    We have reviewed the district courts orders and the record and
    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See United

    States v. Simpson, No. 5:99-cr-00127-BO-3 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2005;


    Jan. 31, 2006).

    Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

    does not entitle Simpson to relief as there was no clerical error.


    Relief was not available to Simpson in a motion for reconsideration
    or by filing a 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like