Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing an appeal from Miles Thomas Clarke of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the district court's opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing an appeal from Miles Thomas Clarke of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the district court's opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-05-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7212

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing an appeal from Miles Thomas Clarke of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the district court's opinion.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing an appeal from Miles Thomas Clarke of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the district court's opinion.

    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. 95-7212

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MILES THOMAS CLARKE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-89-136-N, CA-95-673-2)
    Submitted:

    May 16, 1996

    Decided:

    May 29, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Miles Thomas Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.
    Laura Marie Everhart,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 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 denying his
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988) motion. 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. Clarke, Nos. CR-89-136-N;
    CA-95-673-2 (E.D. Va. July 19, 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like