Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Robert Van Scott appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no error in the district court's reasoning. Scott's conviction became final no later than December 23, 1996 but he did not file his § 2255 motion until October 2, 1998, over a year later. Even if the limitations period was tolled until entry of an amended judgment on the government's Rule 35(b) motion, Scott's § 2255 motion was still untimely. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-05-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7776

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Van Scott appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no error in the district court's reasoning. Scott's conviction became final no later than December 23, 1996 but he did not file his § 2255 motion until October 2, 1998, over a year later. Even if the limitations period was tolled until entry of an amended judgment on the government's Rule 35(b) motion, Scott's § 2255 motion was still untimely. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Van Scott appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no error in the district court's reasoning. Scott's conviction became final no later than December 23, 1996 but he did not file his § 2255 motion until October 2, 1998, over a year later. Even if the limitations period was tolled until entry of an amended judgment on the government's Rule 35(b) motion, Scott's § 2255 motion was still untimely. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-7776

    ROBERT VAN SCOTT,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
    Judge. (CR-95-3-3, CA-98-212-4)

    Submitted:

    March 9, 1999

    Decided:

    May 27, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert Allen Ratliff, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Deborah Ann
    Ausburn, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Van Scott seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1998) as barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court. See Scott v. United States, CR-95-3-3; CA-98-212-4 (W.D.N.C.
    Oct. 26, 1998).

    Scotts conviction became final no later than De-

    cember 23, 1996, the last day on which Scott could have petitioned
    the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

    He did not file the

    2255 motion until October 2, 1998, more than one year after his
    conviction became final. Even if the Governments filing of a Fed.
    R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion tolled the limitations period until entry
    of the amended judgment, Scotts 2255 motion was still untimely.
    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