Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Padgett, 96-7506 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7506 Visitors: 30
Filed: Feb. 12, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL L. PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-91-166, CA-94-377-1) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: February 12, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL L. PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-91-166, CA-94-377-1) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: February 12, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court's earlier 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 probable cause and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. United States v. Padgett, Nos. CR-91-166; CA-94-377-1 (S.D.W. Va. July 30, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for abey- ance and remand. 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