Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Morgan, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Rojean Morgan's request to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny the motion. As such, the appellate court denied Morgan's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its April 20, 1998 order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-02-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6678

    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 Rojean Morgan's request to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny the motion. As such, the appellate court denied Morgan's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its April 20, 1998 order.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Morgan, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Rojean Morgan's request to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny the motion. As such, the appellate court denied Morgan's request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its April 20, 1998 order.

    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. 98-6678

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROJEAN MORGAN, a/k/a Yusef Shabazz, a/k/a Eli,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
    District Judge. (CR-92-57-G, CA-97-531-2)

    Submitted:

    February 11, 1999

    Decided:

    February 23, 1999

    Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Rojean Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, 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:
    Rojean Morgan seeks to appeal the district courts order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
    1998).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opin-

    ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find


    no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in

    forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the


    appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See United States

    v. Morgan, Nos. CR-92-57-G; CA-97-531-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 1998).


    Morgans motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

    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