Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Scott, 97-7567 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7567 Visitors: 41
Filed: Mar. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN JULIUS SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-88- 394, CA-97-2050-MJG) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN JULIUS SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-88- 394, CA-97-2050-MJG) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cheryl Johns Sturm, for Appellant. Katherine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Scott, Nos. CR-88-394; CA-97-2050-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 8, 1997). Our decision intimates nothing about the retro- activity of the one-year limitations period imposed by the Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1997), since Appellant filed this action over one year after the effective date of the statute. 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