Filed: Nov. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7342 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AARON LAMONT BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-80) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Lamont Barne
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7342 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AARON LAMONT BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-80) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Lamont Barnes..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7342 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AARON LAMONT BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-80) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Lamont Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aaron Lamont Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Barnes, No. CR-94-80 (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2000). We also deny Barnes’ motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal Number 00-6408. 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