United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jimmy Doyle Hindman, Defendant-appellant, 873 F.2d 1441 (4th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseJimmy Doyle Hindman, appellant pro se.
Jerry Wayne Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, for appellee.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Doyle Hindman appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court properly noted that the issue raised by Hindman was previously rejected on the merits on direct appeal. As there has been no intervening change in the law favorable to Hindman, see Huddleston v. United States, 56 U.S.L.W. 4363 (U.S. May 1, 1988) (No. 87-6), there is no basis for the relitigation of this claim. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974); Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182 (4th Cir. 1976). 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
