Filed: Dec. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6659 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN DANIEL LEASURE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-54, CA-98-377-2) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Dani
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6659 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN DANIEL LEASURE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-54, CA-98-377-2) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Danie..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6659 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN DANIEL LEASURE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-54, CA-98-377-2) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Daniel LeaSure, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Daniel LeaSure seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). The district court has since entered an order vacating and rescinding the appealed from order. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of juris- diction.* 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. DISMISSED * Because of the procedural history of this case, LeaSure retains his right to file a § 2255 motion, if necessary, following disposition of his direct appeal without seeking permission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). 2