Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Palacio, 20-1079 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 20-1079 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7379 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY ROGERS PALACIO, a/k/a L.L., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-97-262, CA-99-135-3) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dism
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7379 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY ROGERS PALACIO, a/k/a L.L., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-97-262, CA-99-135-3) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Rogers Palacio, Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr., John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rich- mond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney Rogers Palacio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifi- cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Palacio, Nos. CR-97-262; CA-99-135-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 1999). We dispense with oral argu- ment 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