Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6373 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN TYRONE HAGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-429-A) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Tyrone Hagg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6373 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN TYRONE HAGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-429-A) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Tyrone Haggi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6373 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN TYRONE HAGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-429-A) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Tyrone Haggins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Glenn Tyrone Haggins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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. Haggins, No. CR-91-429-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2000). 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
