United States v. Carmichael

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Carmichael

605 F. App'x 208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2015

DocketNo. 14-6205

StatusPublished

This text of 605 F. App'x 208 (United States v. Carmichael) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Carmichael, 605 F. App'x 208 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Deonza Lamar Carmichael appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carmichael v. United States, No. 5:08-cr-00229-FL-2; 5:12-cv-00288-FL, 2014 WL 495437 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2014); see also United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (May 12, 2015) (No. 14-9792). We deny Carmichael’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. '

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Deonza Lamar Carmichael appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carmichael v. United States, No. 5:08-cr-00229-FL-2; 5:12-cv-00288-FL, 2014 WL 495437 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2014); see also United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir.2015), petition for cert. filed (May 12, 2015) (No. 14-9792). We deny Carmichael’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 F. App'x 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carmichael-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack