Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Sowell, 02-6892 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6892 Visitors: 64
Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM SOWELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-158, CA-01-502-1) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM SOWELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-158, CA-01-502-1) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sowell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Sowell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Sowell, Nos. CR-99-158; CA-01-502-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 14 and May 14, 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