Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Michael J. McDowell's 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 reasoning for denying the motion. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in that court's opinion and dispensed with oral arguments as the issues were adequately addressed in the materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-04-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7818

    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 court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Michael J. McDowell's 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 reasoning for denying the motion. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in that court's opinion and dispensed with oral arguments as the issues were adequately addressed in the materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Michael J. McDowell's 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 reasoning for denying the motion. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling based on the reasoning in that court's opinion and dispensed with oral arguments as the issues were adequately addressed in the materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 96-7818

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL J. MCDOWELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
    (CR-94-128, CA-96-312-5-F)
    Submitted:

    March 24, 1998

    Decided:

    April 20, 1998

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


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael J. McDowell, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his
    motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1994) (current version at 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S.
    June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298); United States v. McDowell, Nos. CR94-128; CA-96-312-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 22, 1996). 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