United States v. Howell

517 F. App'x 168
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 2013
DocketNo. 12-7670
StatusPublished

This text of 517 F. App'x 168 (United States v. Howell) 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. Howell, 517 F. App'x 168 (4th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

[169]*169Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark Allen Howell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion as untimely. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Howell, No. 4:08-cr-00041-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2012); cf. Lo v. Endicott, 506 F.3d 572, 575 (7th Cir.2007); E.J.R.E. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1094, 1098 (8th Cir.2006); Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir.2005). We 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

Related

Brian Dennis Shannon v. Anthony Newland, Warden
410 F.3d 1083 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Lo v. Endicott
506 F.3d 572 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
517 F. App'x 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-howell-ca4-2013.