Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Clark, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Adrian Clark's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Additionally, the appellate court declined to address Clark's new claim of ineffective assistance of counsel since it was raised for the first time on appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-01-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7299

    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 denied Adrian Clark's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Additionally, the appellate court declined to address Clark's new claim of ineffective assistance of counsel since it was raised for the first time on appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Clark, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Adrian Clark's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Additionally, the appellate court declined to address Clark's new claim of ineffective assistance of counsel since it was raised for the first time on appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 99-7299

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ADRIAN CLARK, a/k/a L.A.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-96-20, CA-98-54-3)

    Submitted:

    January 13, 2000

    Decided:

    January 20, 2000

    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Adrian Clark, Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Adrian Clark seeks to appeal the district courts order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 1999).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Clark, Nos. CR-96-20; CA-98-54-3
    (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 3, 1999).

    Additionally, we decline to address

    the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was raised


    for the first time on appeal.

    We dispense with oral argument be-

    cause 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