Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    United States v. Arnette, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Larry Arnette filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, affirming the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials and argument would not aid in the decision. The district court's denial of Arnette's § 2255 motion was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Arnette, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    James Larry Arnette filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, affirming the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials and argument would not aid in the decision. The district court's denial of Arnette's § 2255 motion was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-03-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7494

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James Larry Arnette filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, affirming the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials and argument would not aid in the decision. The district court's denial of Arnette's § 2255 motion was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Arnette, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Larry Arnette filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which was denied by the district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error, affirming the reasoning of the district court. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials and argument would not aid in the decision. The district court's denial of Arnette's § 2255 motion was affirmed.

    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. 95-7494

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES LARRY ARNETTE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Hiram H. Ward, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-80-50, CR-80-51, CA-94-550)
    Submitted:

    February 27, 1996

    Decided:

    March 13, 1996

    Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Larry Arnette, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, 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:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Arnette, Nos.
    CR-80-50; CR-80-51; CA-94-550 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 1995). 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