Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Shores, 98-7239 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7239 Visitors: 33
Filed: Jan. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7239 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRED SHORES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-49, CA-97-146-5-MU) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER,* MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7239 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRED SHORES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-49, CA-97-146-5-MU) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER,* MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. * Judge Widener did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Fred Shores, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Shores, Nos. CR-90-49; CA-97-146-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 1998). 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
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