Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6797 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY L. DARK, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-50017-5, CA-99-708-7) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey L. Dar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6797 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COREY L. DARK, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-50017-5, CA-99-708-7) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey L. Dark..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6797
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
COREY L. DARK, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-94-50017-5, CA-99-708-7)
Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corey L. Dark, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Corey L. Dark, Sr., 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
opinion and find no reversible error. To the extent that he claims
error by the sentencing court and the Government, these claims
could have been raised on direct appeal and are not subject to
collateral review. See Boeckenhaupt v. United States,
537 F.2d
1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976). To the extent that he seeks to chal-
lenge the execution and computation of his sentence, jurisdiction
over this issue lies within the District of Maryland where Appel-
lant is presently incarcerated. See United States v. Miller,
871
F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss this appeal. 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