Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Johnson, 02-6338 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6338 Visitors: 35
Filed: Jun. 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME E. JOHNSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-331, CA-93-482) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome E. Johns
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME E. JOHNSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-331, CA-93-482) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome E. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Levchuk, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial without prejudice of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion, which the district court construed as a second or successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. 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. Johnson, Nos. CR-90-331; CA-93-482 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 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