Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    1) Garfield Hollingsworth appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Hollingsworth's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as presented in United States v. Hollingsworth, Nos. CR-90-195-2-G; CA-97-494-2 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 1998

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-03-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6073

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Garfield Hollingsworth appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Hollingsworth's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as presented in United States v. Hollingsworth, Nos. CR-90-195-2-G; CA-97-494-2 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 1998

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Garfield Hollingsworth appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. 3) The Fourth Circuit denied Hollingsworth's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning as presented in United States v. Hollingsworth, Nos. CR-90-195-2-G; CA-97-494-2 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 1998

    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. 99-6073

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GARFIELD BANCROFT HOLLINGSWORTH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-90-195-2-G, CA-97-494-2)

    Submitted:

    March 25, 1999

    Decided:

    March 31, 1999

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


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Garfield Bancroft Hollingsworth, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis
    Joseph, 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:
    Garfield Bancroft Hollingsworth 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 dis-

    trict courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny

    Hollingsworths motion for a certificate of appealability and


    dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    United States v. Hollingsworth, Nos. CR-90-195-2-G; CA-97-494-2


    (M.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 1998).

    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