Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6897 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus YUL CARTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-90-41, CA-00-948-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6897 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus YUL CARTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-90-41, CA-00-948-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6897
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YUL CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-90-41, CA-00-948-2)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yul Carter, Appellant Pro Se. John Patrick Rowley, III, HOLLAND &
KNIGHT, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yul Carter 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 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. Carter, Nos. CR-90-41; CA-00-948-2
(S.D.W. Va. Apr. 4, 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