Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    United States v. Hoberek, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Stanley Hoberek appealed the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Hoberek's motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Hoberek, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Stanley Hoberek appealed the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Hoberek's motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-08-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7872

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Stanley Hoberek appealed the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Hoberek's motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Hoberek, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Stanley Hoberek appealed the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Hoberek's motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    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. 03-7872

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    STANLEY HOBEREK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-99-13)

    Submitted:

    August 12, 2004

    Decided:

    August 17, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stanley Hoberek, Appellant Pro Se.


    Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley

    Hoberek

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion for correction of illegal


    sentence.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible


    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court. See United States v. Hoberek, No. CR-99-13 (N.D.W.


    Va. Nov. 7, 2003).
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like