Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Penn, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Gregg Penn's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6333

    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 denied Gregg Penn's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Penn, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Gregg Penn's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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. 99-6333

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GREGG DINARDE PENN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-96-175, CA-98-169-1)

    Submitted:

    October 20, 1999

    Decided:

    November 3, 1999

    Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Gregg Dinarde Penn, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Greg Dinarde Penn seeks to appeal the district court's order
    denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    1999).

    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin-

    ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find


    no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court.

    See United States v. Penn, Nos. CR-96-175; CA-98-169-1

    (M.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 1999*).

    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

    Although the district courts judgment and order is marked


    as "filed" on February 23, 1999, the district court's records show
    that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 24, 1999.
    Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on
    the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district
    court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35
    (4th Cir. 1986).
    2

    You might also like