Filed: Oct. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAMONT DIGSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-88, CA-02-143-3-2-MU) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAMONT DIGSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-88, CA-02-143-3-2-MU) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAMONT DIGSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-88, CA-02-143-3-2-MU) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Digsby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lamont Digsby seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Digsby has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Digsby, Nos. CR-00-88; CA-02-143-3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. July 31, 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
