Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Young, 01-7712 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7712 Visitors: 33
Filed: Mar. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7712 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUTHVEN YOUNG, a/k/a Ra Ra, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ASHBERTH SHERRAN GUERRA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-7806 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DON ANTHONY GUERRA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Char
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7712 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUTHVEN YOUNG, a/k/a Ra Ra, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ASHBERTH SHERRAN GUERRA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-7806 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DON ANTHONY GUERRA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-445, CA-96-2874-8-2, CA-97-1193-8-2, CA-97-1194-8-2) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ruthven Young, Ashberth Sherran Guerra, Don Anthony Guerra, Appel- lants Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motions 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 certificates of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Young, Nos. CR-92-445, CA-96-2874-8-2 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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