Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Bobby Scean Sang appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence. Sang argued that the district court should have reduced his base offense level under the "safety valve" provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court dismissed the appeal because Sang failed to raise this nonconstitutional claim in his direct appeal, and thus could not assert it in this collateral proceeding. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-04-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6055

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bobby Scean Sang appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence. Sang argued that the district court should have reduced his base offense level under the "safety valve" provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court dismissed the appeal because Sang failed to raise this nonconstitutional claim in his direct appeal, and thus could not assert it in this collateral proceeding. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bobby Scean Sang appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence. Sang argued that the district court should have reduced his base offense level under the "safety valve" provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court dismissed the appeal because Sang failed to raise this nonconstitutional claim in his direct appeal, and thus could not assert it in this collateral proceeding. The court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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. 98-6055

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BOBBY SCEAN SANG,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-94-271, CA-97-831-1)
    Submitted:

    March 26, 1998

    Decided:

    April 9, 1998

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


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bobby Scean Sang, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, 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. Appellant alleged that the district court should
    have reduced his base offense level under the "safety valve" provision,

    U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL

    5C1.2

    (1994).

    Because

    Appellant failed to raise this nonconstitutional claim in his


    direct appeal, he may not assert it in this collateral proceeding.
    See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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