Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Mills, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Stephen James Mills' Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling based on its reasoning. The Court also determined that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-11-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7595

    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 affirmed the district court's denial of Stephen James Mills' Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling based on its reasoning. The Court also determined that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Mills, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Stephen James Mills' Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling based on its reasoning. The Court also determined that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided to the court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-7595

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    STEPHEN JAMES MILLS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CR-97-815)

    Submitted:

    November 8, 2001

    Decided:

    November 21, 2001

    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Stephen James Mills, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen James Mills appeals from the district courts order
    denying his Rule 60(b)(4) motion.

    We have reviewed the record and

    the district courts opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    United

    States v. Mills, No. CR-97-815 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 27, 2001; entered
    Aug. 28, 2001).

    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