Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Andre Terry Hall's appeal of a district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, relying on the district court's reasoning as outlined in its June 9, 1998 opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-11-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6940

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Andre Terry Hall's appeal of a district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, relying on the district court's reasoning as outlined in its June 9, 1998 opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Andre Terry Hall's appeal of a district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, relying on the district court's reasoning as outlined in its June 9, 1998 opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case 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. 98-6940

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANDR TERRY HALL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-94-92, CA-97-745-R)

    Submitted:

    October 20, 1998

    Decided:

    November 4, 1998

    Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Eric Richard Nordman, Westerville, Ohio; Malcolm McLeod Doubles,
    Salem, Virginia, for Appellant.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Andr T. Hall seeks to appeal the district courts order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reinstate his 28 U.S.C.A.
    2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record
    and the district courts opinion 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.
    Hall, Nos. CR-94-92, CA-97-745-R (W.D. Va. June 9, 1998). 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