Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 F.3d 227

Docket No. 93-6397.

United States v. Jerry Winslow Clark

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: August 20, 1993. Decided: September 10, 1993.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1993-09-10

Cited by 49 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1994 · most notably United States v. O Nwanze, Oglesby v. United States (1993)

42 federal appellate ·

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 46

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1993-09-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-21-NN, CA-93-32-4)

Jerry Winslow Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINS* and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Jerry W. Clark appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.* Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Clark, Nos. CR-89-21-NN, CA-93-32-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1993). 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

*

Judge Wilkins did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d)

*

While not raised by Clark, the district judge determined that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (Nov. 1992) is not retroactive. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (Nov. 1992). Further, even if § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) had been retroactive, Clark was appropriately sentenced because the amount of narcotics possessed or distributed by his co-conspirator was reasonably foreseeable in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity

/7/f3d/227 · .json · Public domain