Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Monson, 98-7494 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7494 Visitors: 87
Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7494 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMETT ALVIN MONSON, a/k/a Timothy Lee Barr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-42-WS, CA-97-610-6) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7494 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMETT ALVIN MONSON, a/k/a Timothy Lee Barr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-42-WS, CA-97-610-6) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmett Alvin Monson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Emmett Alvin Monson 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Monson’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Monson, Nos. CR-93-42-WS; CA-97-610-6 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 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