Filed: Jun. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6752 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ETROY CARLOS MOORER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-97-43, CA-00-1002-2-12) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Etroy Carlos Moorer,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6752 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ETROY CARLOS MOORER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-97-43, CA-00-1002-2-12) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Etroy Carlos Moorer, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6752
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ETROY CARLOS MOORER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, District Judge.
(CR-97-43, CA-00-1002-2-12)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Etroy Carlos Moorer, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Etroy Carlos Moorer 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 Moorer
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
123 S. Ct. 1029
(2003). 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