0% found this document useful (0 votes)
14 views1 page

United States v. Michael James Smith, 21 F.3d 426, 4th Cir. (1994)

Michael James Smith appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding the appeal to be without merit based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
14 views1 page

United States v. Michael James Smith, 21 F.3d 426, 4th Cir. (1994)

Michael James Smith appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding the appeal to be without merit based on the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

21 F.

3d 426
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished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of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the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.
Michael James SMITH, Defendant Appellant.
No. 93-7230.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Submitted Feb. 17, 1994.
Decided March 11, 1994.

Michael James Smith, appellant Pro Se.


Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville,
NC, for appellee.
W.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2255 (1988) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion
discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith, No. CR-92-110, CA-93247-2 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 1993). 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.

You might also like