Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Stewart, 01-7573 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7573 Visitors: 46
Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7573 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD TIMOTHY STEWART, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-41-F, CA-00-794-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7573 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD TIMOTHY STEWART, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-41-F, CA-00-794-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Timothy Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald Timothy Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stewart, Nos. CR-93-41-F; CA-00-794-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 2, 2001; Feb. 13, 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
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