Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Smith, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Maurice V. Smith's motion for reconsideration of the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied Smith's motion for a transcript at the government's expense and did not hold oral arguments, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6267

    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 Maurice V. Smith's motion for reconsideration of the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied Smith's motion for a transcript at the government's expense and did not hold 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
    3 views2 pages

    United States v. Smith, 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 Maurice V. Smith's motion for reconsideration of the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied Smith's motion for a transcript at the government's expense and did not hold 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-6267

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MAURICE V. SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CR-93-51, CA-95-47-4-H)
    Submitted:

    July 23, 1996

    Decided:

    July 31, 1996

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Maurice V. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III,
    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:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court order
    denying relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104132, 110 Stat. 1217. 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.
    Smith, Nos. CR-93-51; CA-95-47-4-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1996). We also
    deny his motion for the preparation of a transcript at Government's
    expense and 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