Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Hutchins, 98-6726 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6726 Visitors: 43
Filed: Jul. 30, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES H. HUTCHINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-162, CA-97-302-3) Submitted: July 14, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Hutchi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES H. HUTCHINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-162, CA-97-302-3) Submitted: July 14, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Hutchins, Appellant Pro Se. John E. Sullivan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 trans- ferring his successive 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. Appellant cannot now seek review of claims raised in his first § 2255 motion, the dismissal of which he chose not to appeal. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. United States v. Hutchins, No. CR-92- 162; CA-97-302-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1998). 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