Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Simon Chow appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also determined that neither Chow's trial nor appellate counsel were grossly incompetent for failing to challenge certain aspects of the case. The court denied Chow's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-08-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7072

    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 summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Simon Chow appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also determined that neither Chow's trial nor appellate counsel were grossly incompetent for failing to challenge certain aspects of the case. The court denied Chow's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Simon Chow appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also determined that neither Chow's trial nor appellate counsel were grossly incompetent for failing to challenge certain aspects of the case. The court denied Chow's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments.

    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. 97-7072

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SIMON CHOW,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-94-219-A, CA-96-1641-AM)

    Submitted:

    June 30, 1998

    Decided:

    August 24, 1998

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


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Simon Chow, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Simon Chow seeks to appeal the district courts order denying
    his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have
    reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. Chow, Nos. CR-94-219-A; CA-961641-AM (E.D. Va. July 3, 1997). Additionally, we hold that neither
    trial nor appellate counsel were gross[ly] incompeten[t] for
    failing to attack either the sufficiency of the evidence for Chows
    heroin importation convictions, the venue for the prosecution of
    the importation and distribution charges, or the jury instructions.
    See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 382 (1986) (discussing
    standard of proof for ineffective assistance of counsel). We deny
    Appellants motion for appointment of counsel and 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