Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a district court's partial denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. It dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court that the appellant failed to raise a Fourth Amendment claim on direct appeal and did not show prejudice from counsel's failure to raise it. The appeals court also declined to second-guess counsel's tactical decision regarding cross-examination of a government witness.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-03-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7505

    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    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a district court's partial denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. It dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court that the appellant failed to raise a Fourth Amendment claim on direct appeal and did not show prejudice from counsel's failure to raise it. The appeals court also declined to second-guess counsel's tactical decision regarding cross-examination of a government witness.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a district court's partial denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. The appeals court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error. It dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court that the appellant failed to raise a Fourth Amendment claim on direct appeal and did not show prejudice from counsel's failure to raise it. The appeals court also declined to second-guess counsel's tactical decision regarding cross-examination of a government witness.

    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. 96-7505

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FRANK LEWIS BARBER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-92-88-S, CA-96-192-4)
    Submitted:

    February 27, 1997

    Decided:

    March 13, 1997

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Danny Thomas Ferguson, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    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 granting
    in part and denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Appellant failed to raise his Fourth Amendment claim on
    direct appeal and he has not shown prejudice from his counsel's
    failure to raise the claim. See Whren v. United States, ___ U.S.
    ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4409 (U.S. June 10, 1996) (No. 95-5841); United
    States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167 (1982). Further, this Court will
    not second-guess counsel's tactical decision regarding crossexamination of a Government witness. Goodson v. United States 564
    F.2d 1071, 1072 (4th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. Barber, Nos. CR-92-88-S; CA-96192-4 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 1996). 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