Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Howell, 97-6364 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6364 Visitors: 37
Filed: Aug. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN HOWELL, a/k/a William Anthony Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-20, CA-96-406-2) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN HOWELL, a/k/a William Anthony Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-20, CA-96-406-2) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 mo- tion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Howell, Nos. CR-94-20, CA-96-406-2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 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