United States v. Kurt Frederick Knoneberg

16 F.3d 413, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7348, 1994 WL 4683
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 6, 1994
Docket93-6717
StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 413 (United States v. Kurt Frederick Knoneberg) 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. Kurt Frederick Knoneberg, 16 F.3d 413, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7348, 1994 WL 4683 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

16 F.3d 413
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Kurt Frederick KNONEBERG, Defendant Appellant.

No. 93-6717.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 28, 1993.
Decided: Jan. 6, 1994.

Appeal from the United States Distrtict Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-162-2)

Kurt Frederick Knoneberg, Appellant Pro Se.

William David Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

N.D.W.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Knoneberg, No. CR-89-162-2 (N.D.W. Va. May 12, 1993). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel because the appeal raises no complex or substantial issues. We further deny Appellant's motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense because all materials necessary to consider the appeal are in the record before the Court. 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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F.3d 413, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7348, 1994 WL 4683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kurt-frederick-knoneberg-ca4-1994.