Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Prezzy, 98-7443 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7443 Visitors: 23
Filed: Apr. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME PREZZY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-430-5, CA-98-1329-5) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: April 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Prezzy, A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME PREZZY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-430-5, CA-98-1329-5) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: April 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Prezzy, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, As- sistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome Prezzy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Prezzy, Nos. CR-95-430-5; CA-98-1329-5 (D.S.C. Aug. 20 & Sept. 11, 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