Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Clark, 96-6047 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6047 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6047 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY WINSLOW CLARK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-21, CA-95-129-4) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6047 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY WINSLOW CLARK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-21, CA-95-129-4) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Winslow Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Robert Bullington Wilson, V, COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We find that the district court properly denied Appellant's double jeopardy claim because Appellant failed to make a claim in the civil forfei- ture proceeding. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil- ity and dismiss substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Clark, No. CR-89-21; CA-95-129-4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 1995). 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 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