Filed: Nov. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6639 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TINA MARIE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-106-H, CA-98-860-5-H) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tina
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6639 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TINA MARIE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-106-H, CA-98-860-5-H) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tina ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6639 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TINA MARIE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-106-H, CA-98-860-5-H) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tina Marie Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tina Marie Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-97-106-H; CA-98-860-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 1999). 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