Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Zachary James Hayes' appeal of the district court's denial of part of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Hayes' motion in part and deny it in part. The appellate court also denied Hayes' request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-12-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6199

    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 Zachary James Hayes' appeal of the district court's denial of part of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Hayes' motion in part and deny it in part. The appellate court also denied Hayes' request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Zachary James Hayes' appeal of the district court's denial of part of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Hayes' motion in part and deny it in part. The appellate court also denied Hayes' request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    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. 97-6199

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ZACHARY
    Hayes,

    JAMES

    HAYES,

    a/k/a

    Zachery

    James
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
    District Judge. (CR-93-121-6, CA-96-668-6)
    Submitted:

    November 20, 1997

    Decided:

    December 9, 1997

    Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Zachary James Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
    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 from the district court's orders
    granting in part and denying in part his motion filed under 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and denying his motion
    for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinions accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
    judge and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Hayes, Nos. CR-93-121-6; CA-96-668-6 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 1996; Jan.
    21, 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