Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Skinner, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Gary Lee Skinner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court denied the motion, and Skinner appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, denying Skinner's § 2255 motion based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-09-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6173

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gary Lee Skinner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court denied the motion, and Skinner appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, denying Skinner's § 2255 motion based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Skinner, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Gary Lee Skinner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court denied the motion, and Skinner appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, denying Skinner's § 2255 motion based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-6173

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GARY LEE SKINNER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
    Judge. (CR-94-122-F)
    Submitted:

    September 5, 1996

    Decided:

    September 17, 1996

    Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary Lee Skinner, Appellant Pro Se.
    Jane H. Jolly, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective
    Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214,
    motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. United States v. Skinner, No. CR94-122-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like