United States v. Dennis Lee Rose

74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39092, 1996 WL 15446
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 17, 1996
Docket95-7220
StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1234 (United States v. Dennis Lee Rose) 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. Dennis Lee Rose, 74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39092, 1996 WL 15446 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

74 F.3d 1234
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dennis Lee ROSE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-7220.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 14, 1995.
Decided: January 17, 1996.

Dennis Lee Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Marie Campbell, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for Appellee.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Rose, Nos. CR-89-70-B; CA-94-648-R (W.D.Va. May 5, 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.

AFFIRMED

*

In denying relief on Appellant's motion, the district court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Where, as in this case, the district court considered matters outside the pleadings, it should have treated the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment. See Gay v. Wall, 761 F.2d 175, 177 (4th Cir.1985). Any error was harmless because Appellant received the necessary notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975)

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39092, 1996 WL 15446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dennis-lee-rose-ca4-1996.