Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lloyd, 02-6495 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6495 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 07, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6495 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERROL ANTHONY LLOYD, a/k/a Teech, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-463-A, CA-00-1176-AM) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6495 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERROL ANTHONY LLOYD, a/k/a Teech, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-463-A, CA-00-1176-AM) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Errol Anthony Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Errol Anthony Lloyd seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions 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. Lloyd, Nos. CR-96-463-A; CA-00-1176-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2002; filed Feb. 11, 2002 & entered Feb. 12, 2002). 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