Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Campbell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Uriah Campbell's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The court also determined that Campbell failed to demonstrate that the government impeded his efforts to file a § 2255 motion. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 13, 1998 decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-04-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7612

    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 Uriah Campbell's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The court also determined that Campbell failed to demonstrate that the government impeded his efforts to file a § 2255 motion. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 13, 1998 decision.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Campbell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Uriah Campbell's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. The court also determined that Campbell failed to demonstrate that the government impeded his efforts to file a § 2255 motion. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 13, 1998 decision.

    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. 98-7612

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    URIAH ST. AUBYN CAMPBELL, a/k/a Jamaican Tony,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
    (CR-96-25)

    Submitted:

    April 15, 1999

    Decided:

    April 21, 1999

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


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Uriah St. Aubyn Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Uriah Campbell 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 opin-

    ion and find no reversible error. Furthermore, Campbell has failed


    to demonstrate that the Government impeded his efforts to file a
    2255 motion.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

    and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    United States v. Campbell, No. CR-96-25 (E.D. Va. Oct. 13, 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