TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. James Alexander Bruner

United States v. Bruner, 91 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 27, 1996
Docket
No. 95-6878
Citations
91 F.3d 1341996 WL 3802731996 U.S. App. LEXIS 35209
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

91 F.3d 134

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 95-6878.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 14, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996

James Alexander Bruner, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Franklin Askins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bruner, Nos. CR-94-93-F; CA-95-438-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 1995). Regarding Appellant's claim that the district court erred in proceeding under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, we find the claim meritless. We note that the district court's order recognizes the discrepancy between the offense of conviction stated in the judgment (possession of an explosive) and the offense Bruner actually pled guilty to which was "attempt to possess." Order at 6-7. To remedy this inconsistency, we suggest that the district court amend the judgment to reflect that Bruner was convicted of "attempt to possess" rather than "possession of an explosive." We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list