Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Jackson, 02-7129 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7129 Visitors: 33
Filed: Dec. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7129 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK ALLEN JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-421-A, CA-02-908-AM) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7129 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK ALLEN JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-421-A, CA-02-908-AM) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Allen Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark Allen Jackson 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 Jackson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.* See United States v. Jackson, Nos. CR-99-421-A; CA-02-908-AM (E.D. Va. July 3, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jackson’s request for transcripts, 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 * To the extent Jackson challenges the district court’s failure to permit an amendment to his § 2255 motion, any such amendment would have been untimely. 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