Filed: Sep. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN CLIFTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-98-285; CA-00-607-3-2-V) Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN CLIFTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-98-285; CA-00-607-3-2-V) Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren C..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7758
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WARREN CLIFTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-98-285; CA-00-607-3-2-V)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren Clifton, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Warren Clifton appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on Clifton’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We
previously granted a certificate of appealability on Clifton’s
claim that counsel was ineffective under United States v. Peak,
992
F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1993). Upon review of the parties’ briefs and
the record, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the order of the district court. 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.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -