Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Merritt Avery Johnson's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling that evidence was sufficient to find Johnson "carried" a firearm under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1). The appellate court denied Johnson's request to file a supplemental brief and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7865

    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 Merritt Avery Johnson's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling that evidence was sufficient to find Johnson "carried" a firearm under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1). The appellate court denied Johnson's request to file a supplemental brief and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Merritt Avery Johnson's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling that evidence was sufficient to find Johnson "carried" a firearm under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1). The appellate court denied Johnson's request to file a supplemental brief and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-7865

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MERRITT AVERY JOHNSON,
    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-92-508-A, CA-96-1300-AM)

    Submitted:

    August 18, 1998

    Decided:

    October 22, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Merritt Avery Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Marcus John Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Andrew Gerald
    McBride, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Merritt Avery Johnson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994
    & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district courts
    opinion and find no reversible error. The evidence was sufficient
    to

    find

    that

    Johnson

    carried

    firearm

    under

    18

    U.S.C.A.

    924(c)(1) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). See Muscarello v. United


    States, 1998 WL 292058 (U.S. June 8, 1998) (Nos. 96-1654, 96-8837);
    United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997).
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Johnson, Nos. CR-92-508-A; CA-96-1300-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 1996).
    Johnsons motion to file a pro se supplemental brief is denied. We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like