Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jordan, 98-6739 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6739 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6739 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS PAUL JORDAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-618, CA-97-3344-8-20) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6739 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS PAUL JORDAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-618, CA-97-3344-8-20) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Paul Jordan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Paul Jordan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 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. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jordan, Nos. CR-94-618; CA-97-3344-8-20 (D.S.C. Apr. 6, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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