Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Woods appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court found that Woods could not assert alleged sentencing errors in a collateral proceeding since he did not raise them on direct appeal. For Woods' remaining claims, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views2 pages
    Michael Woods appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court found that Woods could not assert alleged sentencing errors in a collateral proceeding since he did not raise them on direct appeal. For Woods' remaining claims, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-02-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7102

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Michael Woods appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court found that Woods could not assert alleged sentencing errors in a collateral proceeding since he did not raise them on direct appeal. For Woods' remaining claims, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views2 pages

    United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Woods appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court found that Woods could not assert alleged sentencing errors in a collateral proceeding since he did not raise them on direct appeal. For Woods' remaining claims, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial based on the reasoning in the lower court's opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7102

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL WOODS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CR-93-46, CA-94-170-2)
    Submitted:

    January 18, 1996

    Decided:

    February 1, 1996

    Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Woods, Appellant Pro Se.
    Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
    28 U.S.C. 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. With regard to the
    alleged sentencing errors, we find that Appellant may not assert
    those nonconstitutional errors in a collateral proceeding because
    he did not raise them on direct appeal. See Stone v. Powell, 428
    U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
    relief of Appellant's sentencing claims on that basis. With regard
    to Appellant's remaining claims, we affirm on the reasoning of the
    district court. United States v. Woods, Nos. CR-93-46; CA-94-170-2
    (N.D.W. Va. June 29, 1995). 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

    You might also like