Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Lineberger, 01-6849 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6849 Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 02, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6849 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-11-MU, CA-00-568-3-MU) Submitted: July 25, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6849 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-11-MU, CA-00-568-3-MU) Submitted: July 25, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vincent Eugene Lineberger appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for release on bail pending disposition of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. 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. Lineberger, Nos. CR-96-11-MU; CA-00-568-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Apr. 17, 2001). We further deny Lineberger’s motions for release pending appeal, for designation of additional pleadings in the record on appeal, and for mandamus relief. 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