Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Gregory, 00-7731 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7731 Visitors: 31
Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7731 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COURTNEY FLOYD GREGORY, a/k/a Bobby Lee Graves, a/k/a Deangelo D. Marsh, a/k/a Marcello N. Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-96-22, CA-99-136) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7731 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COURTNEY FLOYD GREGORY, a/k/a Bobby Lee Graves, a/k/a Deangelo D. Marsh, a/k/a Marcello N. Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-96-22, CA-99-136) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Courtney Floyd Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Courtney Floyd Gregory 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. Gregory, Nos. CR-96-22; CA- 99-136 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2000). We 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
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