Filed: Jun. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN BERNARD CULP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-166-MU, CA-01-535-3-02-MU) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: June 13, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN BERNARD CULP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-166-MU, CA-01-535-3-02-MU) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: June 13, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7837 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CALVIN BERNARD CULP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-166-MU, CA-01-535-3-02-MU) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: June 13, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Bernard Culp, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Calvin Bernard Culp 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Culp, Nos. CR-97-166-MU; CA- 01-535-3-02-MU (W.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 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
