Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Wiggins, 98-7079 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7079 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7079 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FELTON ANTHONY WIGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-32-NN, CA-97-52-4) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7079 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FELTON ANTHONY WIGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-32-NN, CA-97-52-4) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles E. Haden, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Richard Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Felton Anthony Wiggins appeals the district court’s order de- nying his motion for an extension of time to appeal from the order denying his motion for relief 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Wiggins, Nos. CR-91-32-NN; CA-97-52-4 (E.D. Va. July 1, 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