Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7724 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-291, CA-98-201-1-MC-6) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7724 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-291, CA-98-201-1-MC-6) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7724 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES JEROME ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-291, CA-98-201-1-MC-6) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jerome Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Jerome Adams appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion for extension of time to file his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap- peal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Adams, Nos. CR-91-291; CA-98-201-1-MC-6 (D.S.C. Nov. 4, 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