Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Underwood, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Victor Underwood's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also noted that Underwood's Apprendi claim was not cognizable in a collateral proceeding. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-04-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7957

    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 Victor Underwood's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also noted that Underwood's Apprendi claim was not cognizable in a collateral proceeding. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Underwood, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Victor Underwood's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also noted that Underwood's Apprendi claim was not cognizable in a collateral proceeding. The court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-7957

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VICTOR UNDERWOOD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-96-458-WMN; CA-03-101-WMN)

    Submitted:

    March 25, 2004

    Decided:

    April 1, 2004

    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Victor Underwood, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Victor

    Underwood

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).


    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.*

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See


    United States v. Underwood, Nos. CR-96-458-WMN; CA-03-101-WMN (D.
    Md. Dec. 4, 2003).
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    We note that Underwoods claim pursuant to Apprendi v. New


    Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is not cognizable on collateral
    review. United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001).
    - 2 -

    You might also like