Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Isaacs, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Barrington Isaacs' motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal for failure to meet the standard for a certificate of appealability but then granted rehearing and considered the appeal on the merits. Upon review of the record, the Court of Appeals found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its orders. The Court also denied Isaacs' motion for judicial notice.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-09-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7715

    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 affirmed the district court's denial of Barrington Isaacs' motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal for failure to meet the standard for a certificate of appealability but then granted rehearing and considered the appeal on the merits. Upon review of the record, the Court of Appeals found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its orders. The Court also denied Isaacs' motion for judicial notice.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Isaacs, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Barrington Isaacs' motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal for failure to meet the standard for a certificate of appealability but then granted rehearing and considered the appeal on the merits. Upon review of the record, the Court of Appeals found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its orders. The Court also denied Isaacs' motion for judicial notice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7715

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BARRINGTON ISAACS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CR-98-356, CA-01-2230-2-18)

    Submitted:

    June 19, 2003

    Decided:

    September 26, 2003

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Barrington Isaacs, Appellant Pro Se.


    Robert Hayden Bickerton,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Barrington Isaacs appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) and
    denying his motion for reconsideration.

    Although we initially

    dismissed this appeal on the ground that Isaacs failed to meet the
    standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability, we
    granted Isaacss rehearing petition and have now considered the
    appeal on the merits.

    Based on our review of the record, however,

    we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons


    stated by the district court.

    See United States v. Isaacs, Nos.

    CR-98-356; CA-01-2230-2-18 (D.S.C. filed July 8, 2002 & entered


    July 11, 2002; filed Sept. 3, 2002 & entered Sept. 5, 2002); see
    also Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)
    (declining to consider claim raised for the first time on appeal).
    We deny Isaacss motion for judicial notice. 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