Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN ERNIE AMOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-31-5, CA-98-111-5) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN ERNIE AMOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-31-5, CA-98-111-5) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN ERNIE AMOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-31-5, CA-98-111-5) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Ernie Amos, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jonathan Ernie Amos 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, the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and Amos’ informal appellate brief. Because Amos failed to challenge the district court’s reasoning, he has not preserved any issue for our review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Amos, Nos. CR-97-31-5; CA-98-111-5 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 3, 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