Filed: Jul. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6406 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAM EDWARD JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-19-BO, CA-96-1072-5-BO) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6406 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAM EDWARD JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-19-BO, CA-96-1072-5-BO) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6406
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAM EDWARD JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-89-19-BO, CA-96-1072-5-BO)
Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sam Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible
error. We decline to address the district court’s comment that
Appellant actively employed the gun because we find that the
district court properly found the record clearly indicates that the
jury found that Appellant “carried” a gun, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). See United States v. Hudgins,
120 F.3d 483,
487 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we find that the district court
properly determined that Appellant “carried” a gun during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime. We therefore deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court. United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-89-19-BO; CA-
96-1072-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1997). 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