Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jackie Donnell Hollingsworth, 90-7355 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-7355 Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 09, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 917 F.2d 1302 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. Jackie Donnell HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-7355. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 28, 1990. Decided Nov. 9, 19
More

917 F.2d 1302
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Jackie Donnell HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-7355.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 28, 1990.
Decided Nov. 9, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CR-85-08; CA-89-13)

Jackie Donnell Hollingsworth, appellant pro se.

Paul Martin Newby, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Jackie Donnell Hollingsworth appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny Hollingsworth's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hollingsworth, CR-85-08; CA-89-13 (E.D.N.C. June 6, 1990). 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