United States v. Milton Mark Smith, A/K/A Pete

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Milton Mark Smith, A/K/A Pete

74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39093, 1996 WL 13932

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 1996

Docket95-6793

StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1234 (United States v. Milton Mark Smith, A/K/A Pete) 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. Milton Mark Smith, A/K/A Pete, 74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39093, 1996 WL 13932 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Milton Mark SMITH, a/k/a Pete, Defendant--Appellant.

No. 95-6793.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 1995.
Decided Jan. 16, 1996.

Milton Mark Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-90-195-G; CA-94-521-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 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

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

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Milton Mark SMITH, a/k/a Pete, Defendant--Appellant.

No. 95-6793.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 1995.
Decided Jan. 16, 1996.

Milton Mark Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-90-195-G; CA-94-521-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39093, 1996 WL 13932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-milton-mark-smith-aka-pete-ca4-1996.