Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Fernando M. Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court had also denied Smith's motion for reconsideration and motion for an evidentiary hearing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The appeals court denied Smith a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as set forth in its opinions dated April 20, 1998, November 5, 1997, and October 20, 1997.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7022

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Fernando M. Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court had also denied Smith's motion for reconsideration and motion for an evidentiary hearing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The appeals court denied Smith a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as set forth in its opinions dated April 20, 1998, November 5, 1997, and October 20, 1997.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Fernando M. Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court had also denied Smith's motion for reconsideration and motion for an evidentiary hearing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinions and found no reversible error. The appeals court denied Smith a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as set forth in its opinions dated April 20, 1998, November 5, 1997, and October 20, 1997.

    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. 98-7022

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FERNANDO M. SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-95-499-AW, CA-97-2089-AW)

    Submitted:

    October 8, 1998

    Decided:

    October 27, 1998

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Fernando M. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Fernando M. Smith seeks to appeal the district courts orders
    denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1998), his motion for reconsideration, and his motion for an
    evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and the district
    courts opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-95499-AW; CA-97-2089-AW (D. Md. Apr. 20, 1998, Nov. 5, 1997, & Oct.
    20, 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