Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Sampson, 01-7738 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7738 Visitors: 48
Filed: Jan. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7738 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC CREIGHTON SAMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-31-3, CA-99-127-3) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7738 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC CREIGHTON SAMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-31-3, CA-99-127-3) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Creighton Sampson, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric Creighton Sampson 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sampson, Nos. CR-95-31-3; CA-99-127-3 (W.D.N.C. filed July 25, 2001; entered July 27, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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