Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Falesbork, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Merrick Ralph Falesbork's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also rejected Falesbork's argument that analyzing his ex post facto claim under the 1987 Sentencing Guidelines rather than the 1988 version would change the outcome.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-08-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6522

    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 denied Merrick Ralph Falesbork's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also rejected Falesbork's argument that analyzing his ex post facto claim under the 1987 Sentencing Guidelines rather than the 1988 version would change the outcome.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Merrick Ralph Falesbork's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also rejected Falesbork's argument that analyzing his ex post facto claim under the 1987 Sentencing Guidelines rather than the 1988 version would change the outcome.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 99-6522

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MERRICK RALPH FALESBORK, a/k/a Merrick, a/k/a
    Merc,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-116, CA-97-397-2)

    Submitted:

    August 19, 1999

    Decided:

    August 25, 1999

    Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Cheryl Johns Sturm, for Appellant. 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:
    Merrick Ralph Falesbork 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 opin-

    ion and find no reversible error.*

    Accordingly, we deny a certif-

    icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of


    the district court.

    See United States v. Falesbork, Nos. CR-91-

    116; CA-97-397-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 1999).

    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

    Contrary to Falesborks argument, analysis of his ex post


    facto claim under the 1987 version of the U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines, rather than the 1988 version, does not change the
    district courts reasoning, which we deem to be sound.
    2

    You might also like