Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Nance, 97-7049 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7049 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 10, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-135-R, CA-97-473-R) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 10, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lawrence N
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-135-R, CA-97-473-R) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 10, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, for preparation of a transcript at government expense, for general relief, and to pre- clude the Assistant United States Attorney from these proceedings, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nance, Nos. CR- 92-135-R; CA-97-473-R (W.D. Va. July 9, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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