Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Mendes, 02-6905 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6905 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTIN MENDES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-235, CA-01-9-V) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Mendes,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTIN MENDES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-235, CA-01-9-V) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Mendes, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Martin Mendes 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 Mendes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Mendes, Nos. CR-97-235; CA-01-9-V (W.D.N.C. filed May 20, 2002, entered May 21, 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