Filed: Feb. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7657 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR F. JONES, a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a Junior, a/k/a June, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-362, CA-01-4451-2) Submitted: January 13, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7657 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR F. JONES, a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a Junior, a/k/a June, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-362, CA-01-4451-2) Submitted: January 13, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7657
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR F. JONES, a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a
Junior, a/k/a June,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-99-362, CA-01-4451-2)
Submitted: January 13, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur F. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur F. Jones 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 that Jones has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See
Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 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