Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Spencer, 00-6023 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6023 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD SPENCER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-158, CA-97-839) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD SPENCER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-158, CA-97-839) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Spencer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. * Judge King 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). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Edward Spencer, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Spencer, Nos. CR-95-158; CA-97-839 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 26, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer