Filed: Nov. 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7027 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HORACE OXENDINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-16-BR) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 3, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Horance Oxendine,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7027 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HORACE OXENDINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-16-BR) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 3, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Horance Oxendine, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7027 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HORACE OXENDINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-16-BR) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 3, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Horance Oxendine, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assis- tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Horace Oxendine appeals a district court’s margin order deny- ing his motion to correct illegal sentence. The record reflects that Oxendine has previously filed several motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and that he has not obtained au- thorization from this Court to file a successive motion as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Because Oxendine cannot circumvent this requirement by filing what is best construed as a habeas petition under another name, we affirm the district court’s order denying the motion. AFFIRMED 2
