Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lee B. Phillips' appeal of a district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court declined to address any new issues raised for the first time on appeal. For the ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims raised in the district court, the appellate court found no reversible error and denied a certificate of appealability, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 1, 1997 decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-10-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6954

    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 dismissed Lee B. Phillips' appeal of a district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court declined to address any new issues raised for the first time on appeal. For the ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims raised in the district court, the appellate court found no reversible error and denied a certificate of appealability, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 1, 1997 decision.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lee B. Phillips' appeal of a district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court declined to address any new issues raised for the first time on appeal. For the ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims raised in the district court, the appellate court found no reversible error and denied a certificate of appealability, dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 1, 1997 decision.

    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. 97-6954

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LEE B. PHILLIPS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
    by designation. (CR-93-331, CA-96-1347-HNM)
    Submitted:

    September 25, 1997

    Decided:

    October 9, 1997

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lee B. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).
    To the extent that Appellant raises issues for the first time on
    appeal, we decline to address the issues. See Muth v. United
    States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Regarding Appellant's
    claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct that were raised in the district court, we have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion 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. Phillips, Nos. CR-93-331; CA-96-1347-HNM (D. Md. July 1,
    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like