Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Toolasprashad, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's order construing Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad's filing as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying relief. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded the district court correctly held it could not consider a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals also concluded Toolasprashad was not entitled to relief under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as he claimed.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Toolasprashad, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's order construing Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad's filing as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying relief. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded the district court correctly held it could not consider a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals also concluded Toolasprashad was not entitled to relief under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as he claimed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6639

    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 a district court's order construing Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad's filing as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying relief. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded the district court correctly held it could not consider a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals also concluded Toolasprashad was not entitled to relief under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as he claimed.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Toolasprashad, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's order construing Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad's filing as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying relief. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded the district court correctly held it could not consider a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals also concluded Toolasprashad was not entitled to relief under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as he claimed.

    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. 10-6639

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LATCHMIE NARAYAN TOOLASPRASHAD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (3:85-cr-00045-BO-1)

    Submitted:

    August 19, 2010

    Decided:

    August 30, 2010

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad, Appellant Pro Se.


    Joshua Bryan
    Royster, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Latchmie

    Narayan

    Toolasprashad

    appeals

    district

    court order construing his filing as a successive 28 U.S.C.A.


    2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and denying relief.

    We have

    reviewed the record and the district courts order and conclude
    the

    court

    correctly

    held

    it

    successive 2255 motion.


    claim

    that

    seeking

    could

    not

    consider

    second

    or

    We have considered Toolasprashads

    the

    court

    erred

    by

    relief

    under

    Fed.

    R.

    not

    considering

    Crim.

    P.

    33

    that
    and

    he

    was

    conclude

    Toolasprashad is not entitled to relief under Rule 33.


    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.

    We

    deny Toolasprashads motion for appointment of counsel and we


    grant

    his

    motion

    to

    seal

    exhibits.

    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