Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Marshall, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting in part the government's Rule 35(b) motion and denying Monty Marshall's motion for reconsideration. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. Additionally, the appeals court found that Marshall had waived most of his claims by failing to timely raise them in the district court. The appeals court granted Marshall's motions to seal portions of his filings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-08-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6051

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting in part the government's Rule 35(b) motion and denying Monty Marshall's motion for reconsideration. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. Additionally, the appeals court found that Marshall had waived most of his claims by failing to timely raise them in the district court. The appeals court granted Marshall's motions to seal portions of his filings.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Marshall, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting in part the government's Rule 35(b) motion and denying Monty Marshall's motion for reconsideration. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. Additionally, the appeals court found that Marshall had waived most of his claims by failing to timely raise them in the district court. The appeals court granted Marshall's motions to seal portions of his filings.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6051

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MONTY MARSHALL, a/k/a Mustafa,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (4:02-cr-00002-RGD-TEM-1)

    Submitted:

    July 30, 2010

    Decided:

    August 17, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Monty Marshall, Appellant


    Special
    Assistant
    United
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy,


    States
    Attorney,
    Newport
    News,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Monty

    Marshall

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    granting in part the Governments Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion


    and

    denying

    Marshalls

    motion

    for

    reconsideration.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.


    States
    Nov. 19

    v.
    &

    Marshall,
    Dec.

    8,

    No.

    4:02-cr-00002-RGD-TEM-1

    2009).

    In

    addition,

    we

    have

    United

    (E.D.

    find

    most

    Va.
    of

    Marshalls claims waived due to his failure to timely raise them


    in district court.

    See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250

    (4th Cir. 1993); Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d
    597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999).

    We grant Marshalls motions to seal

    his informal brief and supplemental informal brief.

    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