Filed: Dec. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KELVIN JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-98-360-DWS, CA-00-91) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Johnson, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KELVIN JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-98-360-DWS, CA-00-91) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Johnson, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KELVIN JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-98-360-DWS, CA-00-91) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kelvin Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-98-360-DWS; CA-00-91 (D.S.C. May 3 & May 31, 2000). We deny the motion to amend and 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 2