Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Michael Delaney Johnson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Johnson's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Michael Delaney Johnson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Johnson's § 2255 motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-12-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7290

    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 Michael Delaney Johnson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Johnson's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Michael Delaney Johnson's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Johnson's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-7290

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL DELANEY JOHNSON, a/k/a Jamil Abdul
    Aziz,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CR-93-390, CA-97-860-2-18)

    Submitted:

    November 19, 1998

    Decided:

    December 3, 1998

    Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Michael Delaney Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Delaney Johnson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994
    & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district courts
    opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
    reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR93-390; CA-97-860-2-18 (D.S.C. Aug. 1, 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy