Filed: Mar. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED HEATH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-240-MJP, CA-00-3266) Submitted: February 27, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Heath, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED HEATH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-240-MJP, CA-00-3266) Submitted: February 27, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Heath, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED HEATH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-240-MJP, CA-00-3266) Submitted: February 27, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Heath, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alfred Heath seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Heath’s claims are meritless. Accordingly, he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 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
