United States v. Robert Lee Vandyke, A/K/A Bob, A/K/A Dutch, A/K/A Dutchman

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Robert Lee Vandyke, A/K/A Bob, A/K/A Dutch, A/K/A Dutchman

925 F.2d 1458, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16595, 1991 WL 19962

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 22, 1991

Docket90-7342

StatusUnpublished

This text of 925 F.2d 1458 (United States v. Robert Lee Vandyke, A/K/A Bob, A/K/A Dutch, A/K/A Dutchman) 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. Robert Lee Vandyke, A/K/A Bob, A/K/A Dutch, A/K/A Dutchman, 925 F.2d 1458, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16595, 1991 WL 19962 (4th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

925 F.2d 1458
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Robert Lee VANDYKE, a/k/a Bob, a/k/a Dutch, a/k/a Dutchman,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-7342.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 27, 1990.
Decided Feb. 22, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CR-87-108; CA-90-296-R)

Robert Lee VanDyke, appellant pro se.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee VanDyke appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. 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. VanDyke, CR-90-296-R; CA-87-108 (W.D.Va. June 1, 1990). We dispense with oral argument because the fact and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*

We note that the district court quoted incorrectly 21 U.S.C. Sec. 845 as it was in effect at the time VanDyke's offenses were committed. Section 845, as then in effect, allowed for a special parole term for offenses involving less than a kilogram of cocaine, but not for offenses involving a kilogram or more of cocaine. See United States v. McDaniel, 844 F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir.1988). This error, however, did not affect the reasoning of the district court, since VanDyke pled guilty to two counts of an indictment charging distribution of a total of five grams of cocaine

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

925 F.2d 1458
Unpublished Disposition

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.
Robert Lee VANDYKE, a/k/a Bob, a/k/a Dutch, a/k/a Dutchman,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-7342.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 27, 1990.
Decided Feb. 22, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CR-87-108; CA-90-296-R)

Robert Lee VanDyke, appellant pro se.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee VanDyke appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. 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. VanDyke, CR-90-296-R; CA-87-108 (W.D.Va. June 1, 1990). We dispense with oral argument because the fact and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*

We note that the district court quoted incorrectly 21 U.S.C. Sec. 845 as it was in effect at the time VanDyke's offenses were committed. Section 845, as then in effect, allowed for a special parole term for offenses involving less than a kilogram of cocaine, but not for offenses involving a kilogram or more of cocaine. See United States v. McDaniel, 844 F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir.1988). This error, however, did not affect the reasoning of the district court, since VanDyke pled guilty to two counts of an indictment charging distribution of a total of five grams of cocaine

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 F.2d 1458, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16595, 1991 WL 19962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-lee-vandyke-aka-bob-aka-dut-ca4-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack