Filed: Aug. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TREVOR LITTLE, a/k/a Trag, a/k/a Tragedy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-198) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 10, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TREVOR LITTLE, a/k/a Trag, a/k/a Tragedy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-198) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 10, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6459
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TREVOR LITTLE, a/k/a Trag, a/k/a Tragedy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CR-95-198)
Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 10, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Trevor Little, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Monica
Kaminski Schwartz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Trevor Little appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judg-
ment. We have reviewed the record and Little’s informal brief and
find that Little is not entitled to relief because the case upon
which he relies, Slack v. Daniel,
529 U.S. 473 (2000), does not
call into question the validity of the denial of a certificate of
appealability in Little’s prior appeal. See United States v.
Little, No. 99-7489 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2000) (unpublished).
Accordingly, we deny Little’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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