Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Saunders, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit document summarizes that Keith Eric Saunders 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 Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied Saunders a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. It also denied Saunders' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7649

    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 document summarizes that Keith Eric Saunders 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 Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied Saunders a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. It also denied Saunders' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Saunders, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit document summarizes that Keith Eric Saunders 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 Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied Saunders a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. It also denied Saunders' motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 01-7649

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KEITH ERIC SAUNDERS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-95-251, CA-00-681-1)

    Submitted:

    February 14, 2002

    Decided:

    February 22, 2002

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Keith Eric Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley Glaser,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Keith Eric Saunders seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    2001).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Saunders, Nos. CR-95-251, CA-00681-1 (M.D.N.C. July 3, 2001).
    of counsel.

    We deny the motion for appointment

    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