Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Stone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is a 3-paragraph unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Dominic Lavon Stone's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under Rule 60(b). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit also determined that even considering Stone's motion as a request for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), he was not entitled to relief because his claim was foreclosed by a prior Fourth Circuit decision. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief for Stone.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-08-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6976

    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    This document is a 3-paragraph unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Dominic Lavon Stone's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under Rule 60(b). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit also determined that even considering Stone's motion as a request for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), he was not entitled to relief because his claim was foreclosed by a prior Fourth Circuit decision. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief for Stone.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Stone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-paragraph unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Dominic Lavon Stone's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under Rule 60(b). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit also determined that even considering Stone's motion as a request for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), he was not entitled to relief because his claim was foreclosed by a prior Fourth Circuit decision. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief for Stone.

    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. 02-6976

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DOMINIC LAVON STONE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CR-96-140)

    Submitted:

    August 15, 2002

    Decided:

    August 26, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Dominic Lavon Stone, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Dominic

    Lavon

    Stone

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    construing his motion under Fed. R. Civ. R. 60(b) as a successive


    motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) and denying the motion.

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Even considering the motion as a request for

    reconsideration under Rule 60(b), we conclude Stone is entitled to


    no relief because his claim is foreclosed by our decision in United
    States

    v.

    Mitchell,

    104

    F.3d

    649,

    653-54

    (4th

    Cir.

    1997).

    Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like