Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    United States v. Peeler, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Charles Tyrone Peeler's motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of Peeler's subsequent motions for transcripts and discovery materials. In a per curiam opinion, the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings and affirmed based on the reasoning in the district court's opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Peeler, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Charles Tyrone Peeler's motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of Peeler's subsequent motions for transcripts and discovery materials. In a per curiam opinion, the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings and affirmed based on the reasoning in the district court's opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-11-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7130

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Charles Tyrone Peeler's motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of Peeler's subsequent motions for transcripts and discovery materials. In a per curiam opinion, the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings and affirmed based on the reasoning in the district court's opinion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Peeler, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Charles Tyrone Peeler's motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of Peeler's subsequent motions for transcripts and discovery materials. In a per curiam opinion, the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings and affirmed based on the reasoning in the district court's opinion.

    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. 00-7130

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES TYRONE PEELER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge; Herbert
    N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-96-379-PJM,
    CA-99-3646-HNM)

    Submitted:

    November 9, 2000

    Decided:

    November 15, 2000

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Charles Tyrone Peeler, Appellant Pro Se. Ranganath Manthripragada,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Tyrone Peeler appeals the district courts orders
    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    1994 & Supp. 2000), and denying his subsequent motions for transcripts and discovery materials.

    We have reviewed the record and

    the district courts opinion and find no reversible error.

    Ac-

    cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    United States v. Peeler, Nos. CR-96-379-PJM; CA-99-3646-HNM (D. Md.


    May 8 & July 6, 2000).

    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