Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Jessup, 96-7211 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7211 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7211 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY JESSUP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-72-F, CA-96-321-5-F) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: December 13, 1996 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7211 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY JESSUP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-72-F, CA-96-321-5-F) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: December 13, 1996 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cheryl Johns Sturm, West Chester, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Anti- terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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 on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jessup, Nos. CR-92-72-F; CA-96- 321-5-F (E.D.N.C. June 3, 1996). 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 deci- sional 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