Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Randy Jay Miller's appeal of the district court's denial of his second motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court had dismissed the motion, finding that Miller failed to obtain authorization as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no abuse of discretion or reversible error by the district court. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-02-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6738

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Randy Jay Miller's appeal of the district court's denial of his second motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court had dismissed the motion, finding that Miller failed to obtain authorization as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no abuse of discretion or reversible error by the district court. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Randy Jay Miller's appeal of the district court's denial of his second motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court had dismissed the motion, finding that Miller failed to obtain authorization as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no abuse of discretion or reversible error by the district court. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning.

    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. 97-6738

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RANDY JAY MILLER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-89-109-A, CA-97-612-AM)
    Submitted:

    January 22, 1998

    Decided:

    February 4, 1998

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randy Jay Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Constance Harriet Frogale,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal from the district court's orders
    dismissing for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28
    U.S.C.A. 2244 (West Supp. 1997), his second 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 abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. Miller, Nos. CR-89-109-A; CA-97612-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 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