Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Belcher, 02-7017 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7017 Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPHEN BELCHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-53, CA-01-203-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPHEN BELCHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-53, CA-01-203-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Belcher, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen Belcher 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Belcher’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Belcher, Nos. CR-98-53; CA-01-2-3-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 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