Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Napoleon Goodson IV's appeal of a district court order denying his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6793

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Napoleon Goodson IV's appeal of a district court order denying his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Napoleon Goodson IV's appeal of a district court order denying his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order.

    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. 01-6793

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NAPOLEON GOODSON, IV,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CR-93-471, CA-00-1517-3-19)

    Submitted:

    September 20, 2001

    Decided:

    September 26, 2001

    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Napoleon Goodson, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Napoleon Goodson, IV, seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    2001).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opin-

    ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find


    no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court.

    United States v. Goodson, Nos. CR-93-471; CA-00-1517-3-19

    (D.S.C. filed Mar. 30, 2001; entered Apr. 3, 2001 and Apr. 4,
    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like