Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Faircloth, 99-7162 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7162 Visitors: 33
Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MILTON EARL FAIRCLOTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-94-300, CA-98-1044-1) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MILTON EARL FAIRCLOTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-94-300, CA-98-1044-1) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Earl Faircloth, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Lawrence Patrick Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Milton Earl Faircloth seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). 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 and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See United States v. Faircloth, Nos. CR-94-300; CA- 98-1044-1 (M.D.N.C. July 16, 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
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