Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Parker, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Nilgel Parker's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court of Appeals also noted that Parker's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not properly before them, as he did not raise it in the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-01-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6958

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Nilgel Parker's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court of Appeals also noted that Parker's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not properly before them, as he did not raise it in the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Parker, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Nilgel Parker's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Court of Appeals also noted that Parker's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not properly before them, as he did not raise it in the district court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-6958

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NILGEL R. PARKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (CR-91-577, CA-96-3879-1)
    Submitted:

    November 25, 1997

    Decided:

    January 9, 1998

    Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nilgel R. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Nilgel Parker 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 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. Parker, Nos. CR-91-577;

    CA-96-3879-1 (D.S.C. May 5, 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

    Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not


    properly before this court because he did not raise it in the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
    1993).
    2

    You might also like