Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raul Dennis 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 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied Dennis' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dennis was not entitled to relief under § 2255.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Raul Dennis 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 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied Dennis' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dennis was not entitled to relief under § 2255.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-03-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7329

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Raul Dennis 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 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied Dennis' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dennis was not entitled to relief under § 2255.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raul Dennis 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 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied Dennis' motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dennis was not entitled to relief under § 2255.

    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. 98-7329

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAUL DENNIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
    Judge. (CR-94-47, CA-98-64-1-T)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 1999

    Decided:

    March 8, 1999

    Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Raul Dennis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Deborah Ann Ausburn, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Raul Dennis seeks to appeal the district courts order denying
    his motion filed under 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 deny the motion for a

    certificate of appealability, deny a certificate of appealability,


    and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    United States v. Dennis, Nos. CR-94-47; CA-98-64-1-T (W.D.N.C. June


    24, 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