Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    United States v. Clark, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jerry Winslow Clark appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It determined that the district court correctly denied Clark's double jeopardy claim because he failed to make a claim in the related civil forfeiture proceeding. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Clark, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Jerry Winslow Clark appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It determined that the district court correctly denied Clark's double jeopardy claim because he failed to make a claim in the related civil forfeiture proceeding. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6047

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jerry Winslow Clark appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It determined that the district court correctly denied Clark's double jeopardy claim because he failed to make a claim in the related civil forfeiture proceeding. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Clark, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jerry Winslow Clark appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It determined that the district court correctly denied Clark's double jeopardy claim because he failed to make a claim in the related civil forfeiture proceeding. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    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. 96-6047

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JERRY WINSLOW CLARK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-89-21, CA-95-129-4)
    Submitted:

    May 16, 1996

    Decided:

    June 3, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerry Winslow Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Robert
    Bullington Wilson, V, COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Hampton,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the
    district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We find that
    the district court properly denied Appellant's double jeopardy
    claim because Appellant failed to make a claim in the civil forfeiture proceeding. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss substantially on the reasoning of the district
    court. United States v. Clark, No. CR-89-21; CA-95-129-4 (E.D. Va.
    Dec. 19, 1995). 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

    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