Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Hill, 01-8030 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-8030 Visitors: 93
Filed: May 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID LEE HILL, a/k/a Bo, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID LEE HILL, a/k/a Bo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR- 96-370-A, CA-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID LEE HILL, a/k/a Bo, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID LEE HILL, a/k/a Bo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR- 96-370-A, CA-01-998-AM) Submitted: April 22, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Lee Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions to compel the production of transcripts and other documents in order to challenge his criminal convictions through a habeas motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). Because Hill’s habeas action is no longer pending, we dismiss these appeals as moot. We note, however, that even if we assumed the appeals were not moot, we would agree with the district court that Hill did not make a satisfactory showing of a particularized need for the transcripts under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral 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