Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Darren Dickerson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in United States v. Dickerson, Nos. CR-92-163; CA-95-118-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 26, 1995).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Darren Dickerson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in United States v. Dickerson, Nos. CR-92-163; CA-95-118-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 26, 1995).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-6985

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Darren Dickerson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in United States v. Dickerson, Nos. CR-92-163; CA-95-118-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 26, 1995).

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Darren Dickerson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in United States v. Dickerson, Nos. CR-92-163; CA-95-118-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 26, 1995).

    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. 95-6985

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DARREN ANDREW DICKERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-92-163, CA-95-118-2)
    Submitted:

    December 14, 1995

    Decided:

    January 4, 1996

    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darren Andrew Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Rebecca A. Betts,
    United States Attorney, Charleston, West 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Dickerson,
    Nos. CR-92-163; CA-95-118-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 26, 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