Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Lane, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Rudolph Lane appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appellate court denied Lane a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit determined that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-03-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7138

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rudolph Lane appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appellate court denied Lane a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit determined that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Lane, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rudolph Lane appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appellate court denied Lane a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit determined that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented such that oral arguments were not necessary.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-7138

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RUDOLPH LANE, a/k/a Bay Boy,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CR-92-88-N, CA-96-176-2)
    Submitted:

    February 27, 1997

    Decided:

    March 11, 1997

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rudolph Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, 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
    motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. Lane, Nos. CR-92-88-N, CA-96-176-2
    (E.D. Va. July 1, 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like