Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    United States v. Allen, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1997 in which Troy J. Allen appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals denied Allen's motion for stay pending appeal, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that there was no reversible error in denying Allen's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Allen, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    24 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1997 in which Troy J. Allen appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals denied Allen's motion for stay pending appeal, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that there was no reversible error in denying Allen's § 2255 motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-03-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6557

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1997 in which Troy J. Allen appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals denied Allen's motion for stay pending appeal, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that there was no reversible error in denying Allen's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    24 views2 pages

    United States v. Allen, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 1997 in which Troy J. Allen appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court of Appeals denied Allen's motion for stay pending appeal, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that there was no reversible error in denying Allen's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6557

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TROY J. ALLEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
    (CR-95-145-WMN, CA-96-2676-WMN)
    Submitted:

    February 26, 1998

    Decided:

    March 16, 1998

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Troy J. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, OFFICE OF
    THE 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 Appellant's motion
    for stay pending appeal, deny a certificate of appealability, and
    dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United
    States v. Allen, Nos. CR-95-145-WMN; CA-96-2676-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 5,
    1997, and Apr. 9, 1997). 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

    You might also like