United States v. Raymond Francis Bayerle

993 F.2d 1539, 1993 WL 171300
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 21, 1993
Docket92-7018
StatusUnpublished

This text of 993 F.2d 1539 (United States v. Raymond Francis Bayerle) 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. Raymond Francis Bayerle, 993 F.2d 1539, 1993 WL 171300 (4th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

993 F.2d 1539

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Raymond Francis BAYERLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-7018.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 3, 1993
Decided: May 21, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (CR-89-336-HAR, CA-92-1577-HAR)

Raymond Francis Bayerle, Appellant Pro Se.

Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Raymond Francis Bayerle, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion attacking the sufficiency of his indictment. Because Bayerle pled guilty to one count each of violating 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846 (West 1981 & Supp. 1993), he is foreclosed from attacking any antecedent non-jurisdictional error. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973). See also United States v. Roberts, 296 F.2d 198, 200-201 (4th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 867 (1962) (claimant foreclosed from raising challenge to sufficiency of indictment for first time in § 2255 motion). Therefore, we affirm the district court's order dismissing Bayerle's motion. 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

Related

Tollett v. Henderson
411 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court, 1973)
United States v. Chester Lewis Roberts
296 F.2d 198 (Fourth Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
993 F.2d 1539, 1993 WL 171300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-raymond-francis-bayerle-ca4-1993.