Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Bishop, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Michael Bishop appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit determined that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-11-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7418

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael Bishop appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit determined that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Bishop, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Bishop appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit determined that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-7418

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL WILLIAM BISHOP,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CR-96-30012, CA-01-240-7)

    Submitted:

    October 17, 2001

    Decided:

    November 15, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Michael William Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael William Bishop seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    2001).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opin-

    ion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certif-

    icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of


    the district court. United States v. Bishop, Nos. CR-96-30012; CA01-240-7 (W.D. Va. July 20, 2001).

    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