Elawyers Elawyers
Virginia| Change

United States v. James Richard Hyden, 96-6410 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6410 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 92 F.3d 1183 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. James Richard HYDEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6410. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted July 23, 1996. Decided Aug. 5, 1996. Appeal from the United Sta
More

92 F.3d 1183

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
James Richard HYDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-6410.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 23, 1996.
Decided Aug. 5, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Cynthia D. Kinser, Magistrate Judge. (CR-90-39-B, CA-94-597-R)

James Richard Hyden, Appellant Pro Se.

Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hyden, Nos. CR-90-39-B; CA-94-597-R (W.D.Va. Feb. 26, 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

*

The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993)

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