Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lee, 98-6118 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6118 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 01, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS NEGRON LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-236, CA-97-206-3-P) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS NEGRON LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-236, CA-97-206-3-P) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Negron Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lee, Nos. CR-93-236; CA-97-206-3-P (W.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 1997). We deny Appellant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, motion for appointment of counsel, and motion to stay the mandate. 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