Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Earl Wilson Jr. 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 ruling. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Wilson 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. Wilson, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Richard Earl Wilson Jr. 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 ruling. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Wilson was not entitled to relief under § 2255.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-07-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6371

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Richard Earl Wilson Jr. 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 ruling. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Wilson 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
    5 views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Earl Wilson Jr. 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 ruling. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Wilson 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. 99-6371

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RICHARD EARL WILSON, JR., a/k/a Robert Wilson,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CR-95-49, CA-98-799-2)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 1999

    Decided:

    July 28, 1999

    Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Richard Earl Wilson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Earl Wilson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    1999).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a cer-

    tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning


    of the district court. See United States v. Wilson, Nos. CR-95-49;
    CA-98-799-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 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