Filed: Oct. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DACEY MAURICE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-97-250, CA-00-615-1) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dacey Maurice
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DACEY MAURICE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-97-250, CA-00-615-1) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dacey Maurice ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DACEY MAURICE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-97-250, CA-00-615-1) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dacey Maurice Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dacey Maurice Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR- 97-250; CA-00-615-1 (M.D.N.C. filed July 26, 2000; entered July 29, 2002). We deny a certificate of appealability. 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
