Filed: Jul. 30, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7572 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY CARROLL COOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CR-94-47, CA-97-2-3) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7572 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY CARROLL COOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CR-94-47, CA-97-2-3) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7572
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BOBBY CARROLL COOK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District
Judge. (CR-94-47, CA-97-2-3)
Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Carroll Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-
pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Cook, Nos. CR-94-47; CA-97-2-3 (N.D.W. Va.
Aug. 19, 1997). We note that viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could find
beyond a reasonable doubt that Cook carried the firearm at issue.
See Muscarello v. United States, ___ U.S. ___,
66 U.S.L.W. 4459
(U.S. June 8, 1998); United States v. Hudgins,
120 F.3d 483, 487-88
(4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Mitchell,
104 F.3d 649, 653-54
(4th Cir. 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