Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Moon, 02-6616 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6616 Visitors: 25
Filed: Sep. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6616 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMAL ANTWAN MOON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-203, CA-01-432) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: September 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Antwan Moon, A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6616 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMAL ANTWAN MOON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-203, CA-01-432) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: September 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Antwan Moon, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jamal Antwan Moon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the motion for enlargement of the record, deny the motion for leave to take deposition, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Moon, Nos. CR-99-203; CA-01-432 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 15, 2002, entered Jan. 16, 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