Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Terry E. Bardwell, 977 F.2d 574, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Terry Bardwell's motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit found the appeal to be without merit and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. The court also noted that a sentencing court can now only reduce a previously imposed sentence for substantial assistance to the government and upon motion by the government.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-10-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 977 F.2d 574 Docket: 92-6667

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Terry Bardwell's motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit found the appeal to be without merit and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. The court also noted that a sentencing court can now only reduce a previously imposed sentence for substantial assistance to the government and upon motion by the government.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Terry E. Bardwell, 977 F.2d 574, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Terry Bardwell's motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit found the appeal to be without merit and affirmed the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. The court also noted that a sentencing court can now only reduce a previously imposed sentence for substantial assistance to the government and upon motion by the government.

    Copyright:

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

    977 F.

    2d 574

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Terry E. BARDWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 92-6667.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 31, 1992
    Decided: October 6, 1992

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-70-K,
    CA-91-2017)
    Terry E. Bardwell, Appellant Pro Se.
    E. Thomas Roberts, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellee.
    D.Md.
    Affirmed.
    Before SPROUSE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    OPINION
    1

    Terry Bardwell appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28

    Terry Bardwell appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28
    U.S.C. 2255 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion
    discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Bardwell, Nos. CR-88-70-K,
    CA-91-2017 (D. Md. Jun. 2, 1992). 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

    We note that a sentencing court may now reduce a sentence previously


    imposed only for substantial assistance on a motion by the government. See
    United States v. Apple, 962 F.2d 335 (4th Cir. 1992)

    You might also like