Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Philip Manglitz appealed the district court's denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore dismissed Manglitz's appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    35 views2 pages
    1) Philip Manglitz appealed the district court's denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore dismissed Manglitz's appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2255 motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6566

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Philip Manglitz appealed the district court's denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore dismissed Manglitz's appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Philip Manglitz appealed the district court's denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit therefore dismissed Manglitz's appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying the § 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. 00-6566

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PHILIP MANGLITZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
    by designation. (CR-95-314-S, CA-99-2997-HNM)

    Submitted:

    August 24, 2000

    Decided:

    August 30, 2000

    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Philip Manglitz, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, 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:
    Philip Manglitz seeks to appeal the district courts order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2000).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on

    the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Manglitz,


    Nos. CR-95-314-S; CA-99-2997-HNM (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2000).

    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like