Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gullett, 02-7720 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7720 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 07, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Rehearing granted, June 24, 2003 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7720 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNY R. GULLETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-17, CA-97-456-2) Submitted: January 21, 2003 Decided: March 7, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
More
Rehearing granted, June 24, 2003 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7720 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNY R. GULLETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-17, CA-97-456-2) Submitted: January 21, 2003 Decided: March 7, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Denny R. Gullett 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 Gullett has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Gullett, Nos. CR-94-17; CA-97-456-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 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
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