Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPHEN T. JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-5, CA-96-147-4-V) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPHEN T. JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-5, CA-96-147-4-V) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen T..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPHEN T. JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-5, CA-96-147-4-V) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen T. Jones, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Stephen T. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-94-5; CA-96-147-4-V (W.D.N.C. July 19 & Sept. 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2