Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Noel Donovan Smith of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its January 13, 1997 opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-11-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6169

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Noel Donovan Smith of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its January 13, 1997 opinion.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Noel Donovan Smith of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its January 13, 1997 opinion.

    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. 97-6169

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NOEL DONOVAN SMITH, a/k/a Clinton Paul Smith,
    a/k/a Noel Donnavon Smith,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-94-10, CR-94-45, CA-96-757-6)
    Submitted:

    November 6, 1997

    Decided:

    November 19, 1997

    Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Noel Donovan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).
    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-94-10; CR-94-45; CA-96-757-6
    (M.D.N.C. Jan. 13, 1997).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