Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Quick, 02-6252 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6252 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 18, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: S. Ct. order filed 3/17/03; case is vacated and remanded Petition for cert granted by order filed 3/10/03; opinion filed 6/24/02 is vacated UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6252 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELVIN QUICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-96-134, CA-0
More
S. Ct. order filed 3/17/03; case is vacated and remanded Petition for cert granted by order filed 3/10/03; opinion filed 6/24/02 is vacated UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6252 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELVIN QUICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-96-134, CA-01-58-3-W-V) Submitted: June 12, 2002 Decided: June 24, 2002 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Quick, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Melvin Quick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Quick, Nos. CR-96-134; CA-01- 58-3-W-V (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 26, 2001 & entered Nov. 28, 2001). 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 4
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