Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Melvin, 00-6287 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6287 Visitors: 17
Filed: May 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN JERMAINE MELVIN, a/k/a Baby-Boy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-94-139-5-2-F, CA-98-950-5-F) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN JERMAINE MELVIN, a/k/a Baby-Boy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-94-139-5-2-F, CA-98-950-5-F) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Jermaine Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Stuart Wilson, OF- FICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kevin Jermaine Melvin appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Melvin, Nos. CR-94-139-5-2-F; CA-98-950-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 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