United States v. Scott
This text of United States v. Scott (United States v. Scott) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6627
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EARL SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-183, CA-97-738)
Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: February 10, 1999
Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earl Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Earl Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment deny-
ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s judg-
ment and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Scott, Nos.
CR-89-183; CA-97-738 (D.S.C. Dec. 24, 1997). 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.
DISMISSED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Scott, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scott-ca4-1999.