Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Polk, 96-7902 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7902 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSCAR THODORE POLK, III, Defendant -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-89-31-P, CA-96-308-P) Submitted: March 25, 1997 Decided: April 9, 1997 Before WIDENER, HALL, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. O
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSCAR THODORE POLK, III, Defendant -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-89-31-P, CA-96-308-P) Submitted: March 25, 1997 Decided: April 9, 1997 Before WIDENER, HALL, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oscar Theodore Polk, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter- rorism 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 the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. United States v. Polk, No. CR-89-31- P, Ca-96-308-P (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 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