Filed: May 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6226 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEJUAN SOTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-15, CA-99-2167-0-17) Submitted: May 16, 2000 Decided: May 25, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6226 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEJUAN SOTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-15, CA-99-2167-0-17) Submitted: May 16, 2000 Decided: May 25, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6226 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEJUAN SOTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-15, CA-99-2167-0-17) Submitted: May 16, 2000 Decided: May 25, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. DeJuan Soto, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: DeJuan Soto seeks to appeal the district court’s order grant- ing the Government’s motion to dismiss his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). 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. Soto, Nos. CR-96-15; CA-99-2167-0-17 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2000). 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