Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Hallett, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Anthony Cliff Hallett appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellate court also noted that Hallett's claim regarding a rule of evidence was meritless and that he had waived his right to appeal another claim by failing to raise it in his objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-04-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7358

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Anthony Cliff Hallett appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellate court also noted that Hallett's claim regarding a rule of evidence was meritless and that he had waived his right to appeal another claim by failing to raise it in his objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Hallett, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Anthony Cliff Hallett appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appellate court also noted that Hallett's claim regarding a rule of evidence was meritless and that he had waived his right to appeal another claim by failing to raise it in his objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

    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. 98-7358

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTHONY CLIFF HALLETT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-93-8, CA-97-517-2)

    Submitted:

    April 15, 1999

    Decided:

    April 21, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Anthony Cliff Hallett, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Cliff Hallett seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994
    & Supp. 1998).

    We have reviewed the record and district courts

    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning


    of the district court. See United States v. Hallett, Nos. CR-93-8;
    CA-97-517-2 (M.D.N.C. June 22, 1998).

    Further, we note that

    Halletts claim regarding Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) is


    meritless, because the coconspirator testimony that he attacks was
    not hearsay. Finally, Hallett waived appellate review of his claim
    under 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(2) (1994) by failing to raise this claim
    in his objections to the magistrate judges recommendation.
    Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

    See

    We dis-

    pense 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like