Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
00-6703•William Earl Marshall v. United States of America
00-6703Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit28.09.2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6703
WILLIAM EARL MARSHALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-00-146-5-BO)
Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Earl Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Earl Marshall appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of denial of his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Marshall v. United States, No. CA-00-146-5-BO (E.D.N.C.
Apr. 20, 2000). We deny Marshall’s motion for appointment of coun-
sel. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.