Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. The appellate court denied the appellant's motion to remand the case for a new trial.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    150 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. The appellate court denied the appellant's motion to remand the case for a new trial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-01-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7486

    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 the appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. The appellate court denied the appellant's motion to remand the case for a new trial.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of the appellant's Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. The appellate court denied the appellant's motion to remand the case for a new trial.

    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. 96-7486

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BEVIL LEE GROVES, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CR-92-28-3-1-H, CA-96-241-5-H)
    Submitted:

    November 25, 1997

    Decided:

    January 13, 1998

    Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bevil Lee Groves, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tracy David Knox, UNITED
    STATES ARMY, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his
    motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1994) (current version at 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)) and his Fed. R. Civ. P.
    60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
    opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Groves, Nos. CR-92-28-3-1-H; CA-96-241-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 26 and
    May 13, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568
    (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We deny Appellant's motion to
    remand this case for new trial. 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