Filed: Aug. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY BUSH, a/k/a Duke, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR- 99-118, CA-00-4009-1-19) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Bush, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY BUSH, a/k/a Duke, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR- 99-118, CA-00-4009-1-19) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Bush, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY BUSH, a/k/a Duke, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR- 99-118, CA-00-4009-1-19) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Bush, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leroy Bush 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 opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Bush, Nos. CR-99-118; CA-00-4009-1-19 (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
