Filed: May 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7771 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AROZ KENYON BRIDGES, a/k/a Ken, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00016-BO-2; 5:12-cv-00506-BO) Submitted: April 29, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7771 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AROZ KENYON BRIDGES, a/k/a Ken, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00016-BO-2; 5:12-cv-00506-BO) Submitted: April 29, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7771
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AROZ KENYON BRIDGES, a/k/a Ken,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:01-cr-00016-BO-2; 5:12-cv-00506-BO)
Submitted: April 29, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Shailika K. Shah, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aroz Kenyon Bridges appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely. We
have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and conclude
that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider what is
Bridges’ second § 2255 motion absent prefiling authorization
from this court. United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 205
(4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the
motion on that ground. See United States v. Smith,
395 F.3d
516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2