Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Farmer appealed a district court order that construed his motion under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court also affirmed the district court's denial of Farmer's motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    William Farmer appealed a district court order that construed his motion under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court also affirmed the district court's denial of Farmer's motion for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-12-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7470

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    William Farmer appealed a district court order that construed his motion under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court also affirmed the district court's denial of Farmer's motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Farmer appealed a district court order that construed his motion under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's decision. The appeals court also affirmed the district court's denial of Farmer's motion for reconsideration.

    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. 06-7470

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM HASKELL FARMER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (3:00-cr-00385-CMC-AL)

    Submitted: November 21, 2006

    Decided:

    December 4, 2006

    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Haskell Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald,


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

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William Haskell Farmer appeals the district courts order
    construing his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion as a petition filed under
    28

    U.S.C.

    jurisdiction.

    2241

    (2000),

    and

    dismissing

    it

    for

    lack

    of

    Farmer also appeals the district courts denial of

    his motion for reconsideration.


    find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

    stated by the district court.

    United States v.

    Farmer, No. 3:00-

    cr-00385-CMC-AL (D.S.C. July 7, 2006; Aug. 15, 2006).

    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