Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Dangerfield, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    George Dangerfield appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied Dangerfield a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in its October 3, 2001 opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-04-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7909

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George Dangerfield appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied Dangerfield a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in its October 3, 2001 opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Dangerfield, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Dangerfield appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied Dangerfield a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as explained in its October 3, 2001 opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court 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. 01-7909

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GEORGE ALBERT DANGERFIELD, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-98212-AMD, CA-01-1730-AMD)

    Submitted:

    March 15, 2002

    Decided:

    April 1, 2002

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


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    George Albert Dangerfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Philip S.
    Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    George Albert Dangerfield, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255
    (West Supp. 2001).

    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 United States v. Dangerfield,
    Nos. CR-98-212-AMD, CA-01-1730-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 3, 2001).

    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