Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Teagne, 02-6006 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6006 Visitors: 22
Filed: May 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN WILSON TEAGNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-98-33, CA-01-530-7) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan Wilson Teagne, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROHAN WILSON TEAGNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-98-33, CA-01-530-7) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rohan Wilson Teagne, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rohan Wilson Teagne seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Teagne, Nos. CR-98-33; CA-01-530-7 (W.D. Va. July 16, 2001; Oct. 16, 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