Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jackson, 00-6383 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6383 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 29, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6383 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORRIN LAMAR JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-85) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 29, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6383 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORRIN LAMAR JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-85) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 29, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orrin Lamar Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Orrin L. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). 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. Jackson, No. CR-90-85 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2000). To the extent that Jackson seeks to ap- peal from his December 13, 1990, judgment of conviction and sentence, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). 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