Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • United States v. Royster, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Hochgeladen von

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 Ansichten2 Seiten
    William Oscar Royster appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 arguing that the trial judge's absence from the bench during the government's closing argument was prejudicial. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court determined that Royster did not demonstrate that the trial judge's absence was prejudicial, citing a prior case that a judge's brief absence is not prejudicial. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the district court in denying Royster's motion.

    Originalbeschreibung:

    Filed: 1998-10-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6758

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    William Oscar Royster appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 arguing that the trial judge's absence from the bench during the government's closing argument was prejudicial. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court determined that Royster did not demonstrate that the trial judge's absence was prejudicial, citing a prior case that a judge's brief absence is not prejudicial. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the district court in denying Royster's motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    8 Ansichten2 Seiten

    United States v. Royster, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Hochgeladen von

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Oscar Royster appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 arguing that the trial judge's absence from the bench during the government's closing argument was prejudicial. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court determined that Royster did not demonstrate that the trial judge's absence was prejudicial, citing a prior case that a judge's brief absence is not prejudicial. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the district court in denying Royster's motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-6758

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM OSCAR ROYSTER, a/k/a W. O.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
    (CR-94-26-F, CA-97-287-5-F)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 1998

    Decided:

    October 15, 1998

    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Seattle, Washington, for Appellant. Robert
    Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    William Oscar Royster appeals the district courts order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
    1998). We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion
    and find no reversible error. McCloud did not demonstrate that the
    trial judges absence from the bench during the Governments
    closing argument was prejudicial.

    See United States v. Love, 134

    F.3d 595, 604-05 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 66
    U.S.L.W. 3790 (U.S. June 15, 1998) (No. 97-9085). Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
    Royster, Nos. CR-94-26-F; CA-97-287-5-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 1998).
    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

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen