Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Clarence Alfred Lindsey, A/K/A Clarence Lindsay, A/K/A Cal, 47 F.3d 1166, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views1 page
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from February 1995. It involves Clarence Alfred Lindsey appealing the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit in Lindsey's appeal based on their review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials provided to the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-02-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 47 F.3d 1166 Docket: 94-6941

    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 document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from February 1995. It involves Clarence Alfred Lindsey appealing the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit in Lindsey's appeal based on their review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views1 page

    United States v. Clarence Alfred Lindsey, A/K/A Clarence Lindsay, A/K/A Cal, 47 F.3d 1166, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from February 1995. It involves Clarence Alfred Lindsey appealing the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion by the district court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no merit in Lindsey's appeal based on their review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials provided to the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    47 F.

    3d 1166

    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.
    Clarence Alfred LINDSEY, a/k/a Clarence Lindsay, a/k/a Cal,
    Defendant--Appellant.
    No. 94-6941.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
    Decided Feb. 14, 1995.

    Clarence Alfred Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec.
    2255 (1988) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal
    is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    United States v. Lindsey, Nos. CR-91-116-N; CA-94-570 (E.D. Va. June 14,
    1994). 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