Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Wright, 01-7064 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7064 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jan. 15, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTY LORENZO WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-39, CR-95-44, CA-99-112-4) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTY LORENZO WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-39, CR-95-44, CA-99-112-4) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Bryan Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk, Vir- ginia, for Appellant. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marty Lorenzo Wright 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Wright, Nos. CR-95-39; CR-95-44; CA- 99-112-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2001). We deny Wright’s motion for the appointment of counsel at the Government’s expense and 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