Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Morgan, 98-6678 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6678 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6678 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROJEAN MORGAN, a/k/a Yusef Shabazz, a/k/a Eli, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-92-57-G, CA-97-531-2) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6678 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROJEAN MORGAN, a/k/a Yusef Shabazz, a/k/a Eli, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-92-57-G, CA-97-531-2) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rojean Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rojean Morgan seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Morgan, Nos. CR-92-57-G; CA-97-531-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 1998). Morgan’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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