Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Keeling, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Harry T. Keeling, Jr. appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the case based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit also denied Keeling's request for transcripts at government expense, finding his appeal did not present a substantial question.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Keeling, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Harry T. Keeling, Jr. appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the case based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit also denied Keeling's request for transcripts at government expense, finding his appeal did not present a substantial question.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-03-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7634

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Harry T. Keeling, Jr. appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the case based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit also denied Keeling's request for transcripts at government expense, finding his appeal did not present a substantial question.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Keeling, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Harry T. Keeling, Jr. appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the case based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit also denied Keeling's request for transcripts at government expense, finding his appeal did not present a substantial question.

    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. 96-7634

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HARRY T. KEELING, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CR-93-62-R, CA-96-622-R)
    Submitted:

    March 13, 1997

    Decided:

    March 19, 1997

    Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Harry T. Keeling, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 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 granting in
    part and denying in part his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1994),
    amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
    Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on
    the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Keeling, Nos.
    CR-93-62-R; CA-96-622-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 11, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion requesting transcripts at government expense because
    the appeal does not present a substantial question. 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

    You might also like