Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Underwood, 96-7472 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7472 Visitors: 55
Filed: Feb. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7472 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE DENNIS UNDERWOOD, Defendant -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-94-17-P, CR-94-78-MU, CA-96-209-P, CA-96-210-P) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7472 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE DENNIS UNDERWOOD, Defendant -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-94-17-P, CR-94-78-MU, CA-96-209-P, CA-96-210-P) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Dennis Underwood, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Caro- lina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief 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. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Underwood, Nos. CR-94-17-P; CR-94-78-MU; CA-96- 209-P; CA-96-210-P (W.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 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