Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    James Louis Jones appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that Jones had abandoned the claims raised in the lower court and was instead asserting new grounds for appeal that had not been previously presented to the district court. The appeals court held that claims not first raised in the lower court are not entitled to appellate review. The appeals court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-05-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-8061

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James Louis Jones appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that Jones had abandoned the claims raised in the lower court and was instead asserting new grounds for appeal that had not been previously presented to the district court. The appeals court held that claims not first raised in the lower court are not entitled to appellate review. The appeals court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Jones, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Louis Jones appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that Jones had abandoned the claims raised in the lower court and was instead asserting new grounds for appeal that had not been previously presented to the district court. The appeals court held that claims not first raised in the lower court are not entitled to appellate review. The appeals court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-8061

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES LOUIS JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (1:04-cr-00249-LMB)

    Submitted:

    April 11, 2007

    Decided:

    May 8, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Louis Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


    Erik Russell Barnett,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James Louis Jones appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion for modification of his sentence.

    On appeal,

    Jones abandons the claims raised below and asserts only grounds not
    presented to the district court. Claims raised initially on appeal
    are not entitled to appellate review.
    F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
    the district court.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    Accordingly, we affirm the order of

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    Muth v. United States, 1

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like