Filed: Jun. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6221 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DON PRINCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-96-122, CA-01-2047-3-17) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vonno Lamar Gud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6221 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DON PRINCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-96-122, CA-01-2047-3-17) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vonno Lamar Gudg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DON PRINCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-122, CA-01-2047-3-17)
Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vonno Lamar Gudger, III, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Don Prince 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. Further, Prince’s claims raised for the first
time on appeal are not cognizable because he has shown no
exceptional circumstances. Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250
(1993). Accordingly, we deny Prince’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. See United States v. Prince, Nos. CR-96-122; CA-
01-2047-3-17 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 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