Filed: Jan. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7259 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN KENNEDY SCOTT, a/k/a Michael Webb, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-99-125, CA-00-843) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7259 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN KENNEDY SCOTT, a/k/a Michael Webb, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-99-125, CA-00-843) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7259 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN KENNEDY SCOTT, a/k/a Michael Webb, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-99-125, CA-00-843) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Kennedy Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Kennedy Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 (West Supp. 2001). Because Scott has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we 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
