Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Gilbert, 97-7793 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7793 Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7793 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID GILBERT, a/k/a David Whitt, a/k/a Steve Whitt, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-144, CA-97-422-5) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7793 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID GILBERT, a/k/a David Whitt, a/k/a Steve Whitt, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-144, CA-97-422-5) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Gilbert, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Gilbert seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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. Gilbert, Nos. CR-90-144; CA-97-422-5 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 7, 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