Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Amils Drew, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the government's motion to dismiss Amils Barnard Drew's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Drew's § 2255 motion. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7293

    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 order granting the government's motion to dismiss Amils Barnard Drew's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Drew's § 2255 motion. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Amils Drew, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the government's motion to dismiss Amils Barnard Drew's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Drew's § 2255 motion. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid in the decision.

    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. 13-7293

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    AMILS BARNARD DREW, a/k/a Amils Bernard Drew,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:10-cr-00064-BR-2; 5:12-cv-00517-BR)

    Submitted:

    January 22, 2015

    Decided:

    January 26, 2015

    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.
    Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Amils Barnard Drew appeals the district courts order
    granting the Governments motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2012)

    motion.

    reversible error.
    order.

    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts

    United States v. Drew, Nos. 5:10-cr-00064-BR-2, 5:12-cv-

    00517-BR

    (E.D.N.C.

    Apr.

    30,

    2013);

    see

    Whiteside

    v.

    United

    States, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 7245453 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2014)
    (en banc).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like