Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Pernell, 96-7291 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7291 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COOPER JUNIOR PERNELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-179, CA-96-285) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COOPER JUNIOR PERNELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-179, CA-96-285) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cooper Junior Pernell, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying as frivolous his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism 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. Further, we find this appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. United States v. Pernell, Nos. CR-92- 179; CA-96-285 (W.D.N.C. July 18, 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 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