Filed: Jan. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7267 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWAINE FRANCIS TEEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-55-F, CA-98-132-4-F) Submitted: December 7, 2001 Decided: January 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7267 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWAINE FRANCIS TEEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-55-F, CA-98-132-4-F) Submitted: December 7, 2001 Decided: January 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7267 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWAINE FRANCIS TEEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-55-F, CA-98-132-4-F) Submitted: December 7, 2001 Decided: January 16, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwaine Francis Teel, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Victoria Watford- McKinney, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Caro- lina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dwaine Francis Teel 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason- ing of the district court. See United States v. Teel, Nos. CR-95- 55-F; CA-98-132-4-F (E.D.N.C. July 23, 2001). We deny the motion to authorize preparation of transcripts and production of docu- ments. 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