Filed: Mar. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LEE STRICKLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-00-110-BO; CA-04-1552-5-BO) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LEE STRICKLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-00-110-BO; CA-04-1552-5-BO) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LEE STRICKLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-00-110-BO; CA-04-1552-5-BO) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Lee Strickland, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Fitzgerald Whitted, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terry Lee Strickland 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 on the reasoning of the district court that Strickland has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Strickland, Nos. CR-00-110-BO; CA-04-1552-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2004). 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 -