Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Sanders, 02-7256 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7256 Visitors: 34
Filed: Mar. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Rehearing granted by order filed 3/19/03; opinion filed 12/3/02 is vacated UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-631, CA-02-993-0-10) Submitted: November 14, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER a
More
Rehearing granted by order filed 3/19/03; opinion filed 12/3/02 is vacated UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-631, CA-02-993-0-10) Submitted: November 14, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt Cornell Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Cornell Sanders 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 Sanders has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Sanders, Nos. CR-94-631; CA-02-993-0-10 (D.S.C. filed August 2, 2002; entered Aug. 5, 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 3
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