Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Vause, 02-7053 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7053 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7053 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID CORNELIUS VAUSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-00-760, CA-01-4266-4-22) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Co
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7053 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID CORNELIUS VAUSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-00-760, CA-01-4266-4-22) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Cornelius Vause, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Cornelius Vause seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Vause has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Vause, Nos. CR-00-760; CA-01-4266-4-22 (D.S.C. June 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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