Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Stone, 96-7161 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7161 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jan. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME WILLIAM STONE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-80, CA-96-336-R) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME WILLIAM STONE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-80, CA-96-336-R) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome William Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 as premature his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. The district court's order is modified to reflect that Appellant's motion is denied without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability and affirm on the reasoning of the district court, as modified. United States v. Stone, Nos. CR-94-80; CA-96-336-R (W.D. Va. June 14, 1996). We dis- pense 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 AS MODIFIED 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