Filed: Oct. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY EVANS LARK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-53, CA-97-647-3-P) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY EVANS LARK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-53, CA-97-647-3-P) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY EVANS LARK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-92-53, CA-97-647-3-P)
Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Evans Lark, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Evans Lark seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998) and order denying his motion to reconsider. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find that
the § 2255 motion was filed beyond the one year limitation for such
actions. See id; Brown v. Angelone,
150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. 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