Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Faircloth, 97-6109 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6109 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 04, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN FAIRCLOTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CR-95-87-BR, CA-96-964-5) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Faircloth, Ap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN FAIRCLOTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CR-95-87-BR, CA-96-964-5) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Faircloth, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Evenson, II, Assis- tant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 seeks to appeal the district court's orders (1) de- nying 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, and (2) denying his motion for reconsid- eration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for bail, deny a certifi- cate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Faircloth, Nos. CR-95-87-BR; CA-96-964-5 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 1997). 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