Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McKubbin v. United States, 97-6173 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6173 Visitors: 29
Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6173 JACKIE MCKUBBIN, a/k/a Jack, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-5-V, CA-96-129-3-V) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6173 JACKIE MCKUBBIN, a/k/a Jack, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-5-V, CA-96-129-3-V) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie McKubbin, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, As- sistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, grant his motion to hear the appeal on the original rec- ord, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McKubbin v. United States, Nos. CR-95-5-V; CA-96-129-3-V (W.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 1996; Jan. 22, 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