Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Dennis Howell Smith appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit did not publish its opinion because unpublished opinions are not binding precedent. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Dennis Howell Smith appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit did not publish its opinion because unpublished opinions are not binding precedent. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-6837

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dennis Howell Smith appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit did not publish its opinion because unpublished opinions are not binding precedent. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Dennis Howell Smith appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit did not publish its opinion because unpublished opinions are not binding precedent. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    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. 95-6837

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DENNIS HOWELL SMITH,
    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-89-136-N, CA-95-361-2)
    Submitted:

    December 14, 1995

    Decided:

    January 4, 1996

    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dennis Howell Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    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:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Smith, Nos. CR-89-136-N; CA-95-361-2 (E.D. Va. May 1, 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like