Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Stansbury, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Troy Donyel Stansbury appealed the district court's denial of his motion to abolish his supervised release. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding Stansbury's claims to be without merit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 30, 1997 order denying the motion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments were not necessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court filings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-09-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6936

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Troy Donyel Stansbury appealed the district court's denial of his motion to abolish his supervised release. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding Stansbury's claims to be without merit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 30, 1997 order denying the motion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments were not necessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court filings.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Stansbury, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Troy Donyel Stansbury appealed the district court's denial of his motion to abolish his supervised release. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding Stansbury's claims to be without merit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 30, 1997 order denying the motion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments were not necessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court filings.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-6936

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TROY DONYEL STANSBURY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR89-434-S)
    Submitted:

    August 28, 1997

    Decided:

    September 17, 1997

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Troy Donyel Stansbury, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his "Motion to Abolish Supervised Release" as frivolous. Our review of the
    record discloses that Appellant's claims are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United
    States v. Stansbury, No. CR-89-434-S (D. Md. June 30, 1997). 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