Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    United States v. Mack, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1995. The court dismissed an appeal from Sharon Mack, who had filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge her conviction. The district court had denied Mack's motion, and the appeals court found no reversible error in that decision. As a result, the appeals court denied Mack's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied her motions for counsel and a transcript, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Mack, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1995. The court dismissed an appeal from Sharon Mack, who had filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge her conviction. The district court had denied Mack's motion, and the appeals court found no reversible error in that decision. As a result, the appeals court denied Mack's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied her motions for counsel and a transcript, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7188

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1995. The court dismissed an appeal from Sharon Mack, who had filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge her conviction. The district court had denied Mack's motion, and the appeals court found no reversible error in that decision. As a result, the appeals court denied Mack's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied her motions for counsel and a transcript, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    38 views2 pages

    United States v. Mack, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1995. The court dismissed an appeal from Sharon Mack, who had filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge her conviction. The district court had denied Mack's motion, and the appeals court found no reversible error in that decision. As a result, the appeals court denied Mack's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied her motions for counsel and a transcript, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7188

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SHARON MACK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-92-147, CA-95-1909-6-20)
    Submitted:

    December 14, 1995

    Decided:

    January 17, 1996

    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sharon Mack, Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying her
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
    we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Appellant's motions for counsel and preparation of a transcript, and dismiss the
    appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Mack, No. CR-92-147; CA-95-1909-6-20 (D.S.C. July 20, 1995). 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