Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. McConnell, 01-7959 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7959 Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7959 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACKIE MCCONNELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-97-269, CA-00-705-3) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 25, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7959 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACKIE MCCONNELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-97-269, CA-00-705-3) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 25, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie McConnell, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jackie McConnell seeks to appeal the district court’s order declining to reconsider the prior 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. See United States v. McConnell, Nos. CR-97-269; CA-00-705-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 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