United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Larry Arnold Young, Defendant-appellant, 993 F.2d 1541 (4th Cir. 1993)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 993 F.2d 1541 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: May 12, 1993Decided: June 8, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-88-112-1, CA-90-481-1)

Larry Arnold Young, Appellant Pro Se.

Hunter P. Smith, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

S.D.W. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Larry Arnold Young 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. Young, Nos. CR-88-112-1, CA-90-481-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 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

 *

We also affirm the district court's implicit rejection of Young's claim that the court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make factual determinations, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) (3) (D), based on Young's general disagreement with the facts set forth in his presentence investigation report. " [I]nsufficient objections and vague and cryptic comments and complaints about the PSI do not constitute allegations of specific inaccuracies so as to trigger the Rule 32(c) (3) (D) procedures." United States v. Aleman, 832 F.2d 142, 145 (11th Cir. 1987). Given Young's refusal of the opportunity to elaborate upon and clarify his general disagreements, we find that the district court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing was not an abuse of discretion. United States v. Monaco, 852 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1040 (1989)

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.