Filed: Feb. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAROLD ALEXANDOR HAWKINS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-159) Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Alex
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAROLD ALEXANDOR HAWKINS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-159) Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Alexa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAROLD ALEXANDOR HAWKINS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-159) Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Alexandor Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harold Alexandor Hawkins, Jr. 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 reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hawkins, No. CR- 98-159 (E.D. Va. Oct. 15, 2001). 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