United States v. Linwood Lee Taylor, 106 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
United States v. Linwood Lee Taylor, 106 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Linwood Lee Taylor
96-7034.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 23, 1997.
Unpublished opinion
106 F.3d 394
1997 WL 24005
Unpublished

106 F.3d 394

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Linwood Lee TAYLOR, Defendant--Appellant.

No. 96-7034.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 1997.
Decided Jan. 23, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-92-149, CA-95-865-R)

Linwood Lee Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Taylor, Nos. CR92-149; CA-95-865-R (W.D.Va. June 14, 1996). 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