Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Keith Alan Kirk, 96-6680 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6680 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 105 F.3d 649 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Alan KIRK, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6680. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 19, 1996. Decided Dec. 31, 1996. Appeal from the United States
More

105 F.3d 649

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Keith Alan KIRK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-6680.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 1996.
Decided Dec. 31, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-107, CA-95-1057-5-F)

Keith Alan Kirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Charles Edwin Hamilton III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for discovery to supplement the record and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Kirk, Nos. CR-90-107; CA-95-1057-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer