Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Evans, 98-6016 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6016 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jun. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL KEITH EVANS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-837, CA-97-2072-10-3) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL KEITH EVANS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-837, CA-97-2072-10-3) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant Darrell Keith Evans seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Evans, Nos. CR- 95-837; CA-97-2072-10-3 (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer