Filed: Mar. 07, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7471 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERDELL RASHAAN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-00-230) Submitted: December 18, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Verdell Rashaan Jones, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7471 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERDELL RASHAAN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-00-230) Submitted: December 18, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Verdell Rashaan Jones, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7471 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERDELL RASHAAN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-00-230) Submitted: December 18, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Verdell Rashaan Jones, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Verdell Rashaan 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 on the reasoning of the district court that Jones has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Jones, No. CR-00-230 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 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