Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Blackwell, 97-6585 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6585 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6585 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-319, CA-96-2854-0-6) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6585 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-319, CA-96-2854-0-6) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Otis Kneece, KNEECE, KNEECE & BROWN, Columbia, South Caro- lina; Steven Jay Wisotsky, Miami, Florida; Robert Arnold Hassell, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Moore, As- sistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Blackwell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Blackwell , Nos. CR-90-319; CA-96-2854-0-6 (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 1997). Because Blackwell's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel are without merit, we find it unnecessary to address whether Black- well's motion was timely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Finally, we deny Blackwell's motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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