Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Charles Bennett's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Bennett had claimed double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper calculation of time served regarding his conviction and sentence for firearms violations. However, the only issue Bennett raised on appeal was the district court's sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5), which the Fourth Circuit declined to consider because Bennett had failed to raise it in the district court. The appeals court thus denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7095

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Charles Bennett's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Bennett had claimed double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper calculation of time served regarding his conviction and sentence for firearms violations. However, the only issue Bennett raised on appeal was the district court's sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5), which the Fourth Circuit declined to consider because Bennett had failed to raise it in the district court. The appeals court thus denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Charles Bennett's appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Bennett had claimed double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper calculation of time served regarding his conviction and sentence for firearms violations. However, the only issue Bennett raised on appeal was the district court's sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5), which the Fourth Circuit declined to consider because Bennett had failed to raise it in the district court. The appeals court thus denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 01-7095

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES ANTHONY BENNETT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CR-98-599, CA-00-704-2)

    Submitted:

    September 20, 2001

    Decided:

    September 27, 2001

    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Charles Anthony Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Anthony Bennett noticed an appeal of the district
    courts denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp. 2000), in which he raised claims of double jeopardy and
    ineffective assistance of counsel relative to his punishment for
    violations of 18 U.S.C. 922(j) and 18 U.S.C. 922(u).

    Bennett

    also claimed entitlement to credit at sentencing for time served


    during pretrial custody.

    In his informal brief, the sole issue

    Bennett raises is the propriety of the district courts enhancement


    of his sentence pursuant to USSG 2K2.1(b)(5).

    Because Bennett

    failed to raise this claim in the district court, we decline to


    consider it for the first time on appeal.

    Accordingly, we deny a

    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    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