Filed: Mar. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STRAUGHN THOMAS TAYLOR, a/k/a Pappy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-25) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Straug
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STRAUGHN THOMAS TAYLOR, a/k/a Pappy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-25) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Straugh..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STRAUGHN THOMAS TAYLOR, a/k/a Pappy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-96-25) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Straughn Thomas Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Straughn Thomas Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for review of his sentence for conspiracy. The district court denied Taylor’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) in March 2001. Hence, the court properly found that it lacked authority to review Taylor’s present motion because it effectively sought habeas relief and Taylor has not received authorization from this Court to file a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. 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