Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gaines, 98-7833 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7833 Visitors: 22
Filed: Aug. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7833 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ANDREW GAINES, a/k/a Smokey, a/k/a Jamal, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-209-G, CA-97-827-1) Submitted: July 27, 1999 Decided: August 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpub
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7833 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ANDREW GAINES, a/k/a Smokey, a/k/a Jamal, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-209-G, CA-97-827-1) Submitted: July 27, 1999 Decided: August 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Andrew Gaines, Appellant Pro Se. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Andrew Gaines seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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. Gaines, Nos. CR-91-209-G; CA- 97-827-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 1998). Because a transcript was not necessary to the resolution of issues on appeal, we deny Gaines’ motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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