Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Hayes, 98-6064 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6064 Visitors: 98
Filed: Sep. 11, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TODD MAURICE HAYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-93-12, CA-97-365-3) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TODD MAURICE HAYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-93-12, CA-97-365-3) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Roosevelt Dues, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel- lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. Hayes, Nos. CR-93-12; CA-97-365-3 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 25, 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