Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Burley, 98-7135 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7135 Visitors: 40
Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE BURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 98-7858 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE BURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CR-94-59, CA-97-186-1) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE BURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 98-7858 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE BURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CR-94-59, CA-97-186-1) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Berkley Richardson, Jr., RICHARDSON & RICHARDSON, Parkers- burg, West Virginia; Kevin Michael Schad, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. William David Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Wheel- ing, West Virginia; 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 2 PER CURIAM: In No. 98-7135, Willie Burley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). In No. 98-7858, Burley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny a certificate of ap- pealability, and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See United States v. Burley, Nos. CR-94-59; CA-97- 186-1 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 16, 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 3
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