Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. McHan, 01-6765 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6765 Visitors: 22
Filed: Aug. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6765 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES WILLIAM MCHAN, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-90-41, CA-98-79-3-2-V) Submitted: July 10, 2001 Decided: August 1, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6765 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES WILLIAM MCHAN, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-90-41, CA-98-79-3-2-V) Submitted: July 10, 2001 Decided: August 1, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles William McHan, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Timothy Calloway, United States Attorney, Kenneth Davis Bell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Charles W. McHan 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. See United States v. McHan, Nos. CR-90-41; CA- 98-79-3-2-V (W.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2001). We deny the motion to amend the record on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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