Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Nunez-Rodriguez, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pedro Nunez-Rodriguez's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the denial. The appellate court also declined to review any new claims Nunez-Rodriguez raised for the first time on appeal. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 16, 2001 opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7629

    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 dismissed Pedro Nunez-Rodriguez's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the denial. The appellate court also declined to review any new claims Nunez-Rodriguez raised for the first time on appeal. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 16, 2001 opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Nunez-Rodriguez, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pedro Nunez-Rodriguez's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the denial. The appellate court also declined to review any new claims Nunez-Rodriguez raised for the first time on appeal. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 16, 2001 opinion.

    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. 01-7629

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PEDRO NUNEZ-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Raphael Diaz,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-98-121, CA-01-211-1)

    Submitted:

    January 18, 2002

    Decided:

    February 21, 2002

    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Pedro Nunez-Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
    II, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Pedro Nunez-Rodriguez appeals 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 opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    We decline to review Nunez-Rodriguezs

    claims raised for the first time on appeal.


    States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

    See Muth v. United

    We deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Nunez-Rodriguez, Nos. CR-98-121;
    CA-01-211-1 (E.D. Va. July 16, 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