Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lacorse, 01-6604 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6604 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JORDANIE LACORSE, a/k/a Joe Danny, a/k/a Joe Denny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-97-114, CA-99-1108-1) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JORDANIE LACORSE, a/k/a Joe Danny, a/k/a Joe Denny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-97-114, CA-99-1108-1) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jordanie Lacorse, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jordanie Lacorse 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 opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Lacorse, Nos. CR-97-114; CA-99- 1108-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 15, 2001; entered Mar. 16, 2001). 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