Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Avery, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Frederick Avery's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, determining that Avery failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or on appeal as required by Strickland v. Washington. The Court adopted the reasoning of the district court and denied Avery's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissing the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-01-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6982

    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 dismissed Frederick Avery's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, determining that Avery failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or on appeal as required by Strickland v. Washington. The Court adopted the reasoning of the district court and denied Avery's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissing the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Avery, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Frederick Avery's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, determining that Avery failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or on appeal as required by Strickland v. Washington. The Court adopted the reasoning of the district court and denied Avery's request for a certificate of appealability, dismissing the appeal.

    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. 97-6982

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FREDERICK ERNEST AVERY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
    (CR-92-20-F, CA-97-269-5-F)
    Submitted:

    January 6, 1998

    Decided:

    January 22, 1998

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frederick Ernest Avery, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).
    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
    find no reversible error. We find Appellant's claims of ineffective
    assistance of trial and appellate counsel to be without merit because Appellant failed to establish prejudice. See Strickland v.
    Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Avery, Nos. CR-92-20-F; CA-97-269-5-F (E.D.N.C. June 3, 1997). 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