Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Sean Smith Stevenson's appeal of a district court order that denied his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appellate court therefore denied Stevenson's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order and opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-09-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6591

    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 Sean Smith Stevenson's appeal of a district court order that denied his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appellate court therefore denied Stevenson's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order and opinion.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Sean Smith Stevenson's appeal of a district court order that denied his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appellate court therefore denied Stevenson's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its order and opinion.

    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. 98-6591

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SEAN SMITH STEVENSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-93-244, CA-97-115-2)

    Submitted:

    August 27, 1998

    Decided:

    September 17, 1998

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Sean Smith Stevenson, 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:
    Sean Smith Stevenson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994
    & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district courts
    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Stevensons application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
    appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stevenson, Nos. CR-93-244; CA-97-1152 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 1997; Apr. 3, 1998). 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