Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. McSheffrey, 97-7271 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7271 Visitors: 33
Filed: Sep. 22, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN PATRICK MCSHEFFREY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-76-N) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Patrick McSheff
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN PATRICK MCSHEFFREY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-76-N) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Patrick McSheffrey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 closing his criminal and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) actions and imposing a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district 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. McSheffrey, No. CR-92-76-N (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 1997). We deny all of Appellant’s outstanding motions, including his motions to appoint counsel, for sanctions, to construe this case as a direct appeal, to clarify, for retention of the record, and to place this case in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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