Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    United States v. Curtis Richardson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Curtis Richardson appealed the district court's order finding that pretrial detention was appropriate. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Richardson's appeal was moot because he had since pled guilty in district court. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richardson's appeal without oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Curtis Richardson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Curtis Richardson appealed the district court's order finding that pretrial detention was appropriate. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Richardson's appeal was moot because he had since pled guilty in district court. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richardson's appeal without oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 16-4008

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Curtis Richardson appealed the district court's order finding that pretrial detention was appropriate. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Richardson's appeal was moot because he had since pled guilty in district court. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richardson's appeal without oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Curtis Richardson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Curtis Richardson appealed the district court's order finding that pretrial detention was appropriate. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Richardson's appeal was moot because he had since pled guilty in district court. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richardson's appeal without oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 16-4008

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CURTIS RICHARDSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1)

    Submitted:

    May 26, 2016

    Decided:

    May 31, 2016

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit


    Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Curtis Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Christopher Dolan Taylor,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Curtis Richardson seeks to appeal the district courts order
    finding

    pretrial

    detention

    appropriate.

    However,

    because

    Richardson subsequently entered a plea of guilty in the district


    court, we conclude that his appeal is moot, see Murphy v. Hunt,
    455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982), and we dismiss the appeal on that
    basis.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like