Filed: Feb. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7382 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOMMY DEWEY MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-70117-1, CA-00-135-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7382 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOMMY DEWEY MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-70117-1, CA-00-135-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7382 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOMMY DEWEY MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-70117-1, CA-00-135-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Dewey Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tommy Dewey Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Martin, Nos. CR-97-70117-1; CA-00-135-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argu- ment 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