Filed: Apr. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7808 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT BENTON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-97-866, CA-01-2360-4-22) Submitted: March 8, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Benton
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7808 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT BENTON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-97-866, CA-01-2360-4-22) Submitted: March 8, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Benton,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT BENTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-97-866, CA-01-2360-4-22)
Submitted: March 8, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Benton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Benton, 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
Benton’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
Benton, Nos. CR-97-866; CA-01-2360-4-22 (D.S.C. Sept. 14, 2001).
We also deny Benton’s motion for a new briefing schedule and
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