Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Valencia, 02-6459 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6459 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFERSON RIASCOS-VALENCIA, a/k/a William Keith Patterson, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-40, CA-01-165-3-2V) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Se
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFERSON RIASCOS-VALENCIA, a/k/a William Keith Patterson, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-40, CA-01-165-3-2V) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jefferson Riascos-Valencia, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jefferson Riascos-Valencia 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. United States v. Riascos-Valencia, Nos. CR-97-40; CA-01-165-3-2V (W.D.N.C. Feb. 19, 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