Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Judd v. United States, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case involving Keith Russell Judd appealing the denial of a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Judd's appeal and found no reversible error in the district court's denial of the certificate. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit also denied Judd's motion for reconsideration of a prior order in the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-11-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7093

    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 a court case involving Keith Russell Judd appealing the denial of a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Judd's appeal and found no reversible error in the district court's denial of the certificate. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit also denied Judd's motion for reconsideration of a prior order in the case.

    Copyright:

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

    Judd v. United States, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case involving Keith Russell Judd appealing the denial of a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Judd's appeal and found no reversible error in the district court's denial of the certificate. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit also denied Judd's motion for reconsideration of a prior order in the case.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-7093

    KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ALL 50 STATES; 5
    DISTRICTS; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
    INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; ALL TV AND RADIO
    BROADCASTERS; JUDICIAL BRANCH OF FEDERAL
    GOVERNMENT; LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES SECRET
    SERVICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; ALL COUNTY,
    PARISHES, CITIES, TOWN, CITIZENS AND INDIVIDUALS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF USA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
    District Judge. (CA-00-213)

    Submitted:

    October 10, 2001

    Decided:

    November 15, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Keith Russell Judd, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Keith Russell Judd seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying his application for a certificate of appealability under 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2001).

    We have reviewed the record and

    the district courts order and find no reversible error.


    ingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

    Accord-

    See Judd v.

    United States, No. CA-00-213 (S.D.W. Va. May 24, 2001).

    We also

    deny Judds Emergency Motion for En Banc Rehearing of September 6,


    2001 Order, which we construe as a motion for reconsideration of
    that order under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(b).

    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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like