Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Deckard, 97-7777 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7777 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 10, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus IVAN LOWELL DECKARD, a/k/a Joseph Francis Vale, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-95-45, CA-97-11-4) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus IVAN LOWELL DECKARD, a/k/a Joseph Francis Vale, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-95-45, CA-97-11-4) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Lowell Deckard, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ivan Lowell Deckard seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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 on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Deckard, Nos. CR-95-45; CA- 97-11-4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 14, 1997). We deny Deckard's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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