Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Richardson, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Carol Richardson appealed the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had denied Richardson's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit determined that oral argument was not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6298

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Carol Richardson appealed the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had denied Richardson's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit determined that oral argument was not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Richardson, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Carol Richardson appealed the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the district court, which had denied Richardson's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit determined that oral argument was not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 99-6298

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CAROL RICHARDSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-105-N, CA-97-149-2)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 1999

    Decided:

    June 18, 1999

    Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Joseph Barry McCracken, COOK & MCCRACKEN, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Carol Richardson appeals the district courts order denying
    her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1994) (current version at
    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.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

    court.

    See United States v. Richardson, Nos. CR-90-105-N; CA-97-

    149-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 1999).

    See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___,

    1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298).

    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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like