United States v. Thomas Edward King, A/K/A Eddie, 60 F.3d 826 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Thomas Edward King, A/K/A Eddie, 60 F.3d 826 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Thompson (scd, 1999-04-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Thompson
D.S.C. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793, 797 (4th Cir.1998), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1371 , 143 L.Ed.2d 531 (1999). . 1995 WL 391982, at *5-6 (4th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (Table at 60 F.3d 826 ). . 949 F.2d 777, 783-84 (5th Cir.1991). . 16 F.3d 487 (2d Cir.1994). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Thomas Edward King, A/K/A Eddie
95-6061.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 11, 1995.
60 F.3d 826
Published

60 F.3d 826
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Thomas Edward KING, a/k/a Eddie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-6061.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 22, 1995.
Decided July 11, 1995.

Thomas Edward King, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, WV, for Appellee.

N.D.W.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

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. King, Nos. CR-92-116; CA-94-104-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 22, 1994). 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