Filed: Dec. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT BROADUS, a/k/a Supreme, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-209-G) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT BROADUS, a/k/a Supreme, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-209-G) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROOSEVELT BROADUS, a/k/a Supreme,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-91-209-G)
Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roosevelt Broadus, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Broadus seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of 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 Broadus has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See United States v. Broadus, No. CR-91-209-
G (M.D.N.C. June 5, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss
the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000); see Slack v.
McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (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