Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward J. Robinson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Robinson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    1) Edward J. Robinson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Robinson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2255 motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-09-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6622

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Edward J. Robinson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Robinson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward J. Robinson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Robinson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2255 motion.

    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. 98-6622

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EDWARD J. ROBINSON, a/k/a Jason,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CR-92-163, CA-97-445-2)

    Submitted:

    September 10, 1998

    Decided:

    September 24, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Edward J. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court. United States v. Robinson, Nos. CR-92-163; CA-97-445-2 (E.D.
    Va. Feb. 26, 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