Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Blackwell, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Timothy Blackwell sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court. As Blackwell's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel were without merit, the Fourth Circuit found it unnecessary to address whether his motion was timely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Fourth Circuit also denied Blackwell's motion for oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-01-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6585

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Timothy Blackwell sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court. As Blackwell's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel were without merit, the Fourth Circuit found it unnecessary to address whether his motion was timely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Fourth Circuit also denied Blackwell's motion for oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Blackwell, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timothy Blackwell sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court. As Blackwell's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel were without merit, the Fourth Circuit found it unnecessary to address whether his motion was timely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Fourth Circuit also denied Blackwell's motion for oral argument.

    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. 97-6585

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
    Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-90-319, CA-96-2854-0-6)
    Submitted:

    January 15, 1998

    Decided:

    January 27, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Otis Kneece, KNEECE, KNEECE & BROWN, Columbia, South Carolina; Steven Jay Wisotsky, Miami, Florida; Robert Arnold Hassell,
    Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant. 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:
    Timothy Blackwell seeks to appeal the district court's order
    denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1997). 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 substantially on
    the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Blackwell ,
    Nos. CR-90-319; CA-96-2854-0-6 (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 1997). Because
    Blackwell's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel are
    without merit, we find it unnecessary to address whether Blackwell's motion was timely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
    Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.
    1214. Finally, we deny Blackwell's motion for 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