Filed: Sep. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY DEVON OBEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00268-D-1) Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY DEVON OBEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00268-D-1) Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6546
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY DEVON OBEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00268-D-1)
Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Devon Obey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Devon Obey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
equitable tolling of the time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. United States v. Obey, No. 5:12-cr-00268-D-1 (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 15,
2018; entered Apr. 16, 2018). 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