Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Charles Ledford appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 17, 1995 order denying Ledford's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments would not aid their decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-05-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7832

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Ledford appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 17, 1995 order denying Ledford's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments would not aid their decision.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ledford, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Ledford appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 17, 1995 order denying Ledford's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments would not aid their decision.

    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. 95-7832

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES BURNETTE LEDFORD, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Richard C. Erwin, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-91-71; CA-95-300-4)
    Submitted:

    March 26, 1996

    Decided:

    May 20, 1996

    Before ERVIN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles Burnette Ledford, Jr., 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:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the
    magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Ledford, No. CR-91-71; CA-95-300-4 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 1995). 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

    You might also like