Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6896 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 00-6940 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-61, CA-98-403-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6896 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 00-6940 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-61, CA-98-403-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6896 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 00-6940 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-61, CA-98-403-7) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Blake Johnson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Blake Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for a certificate of appeal- ability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny § 2255 relief and the court’s opinion denying a certificate of appealability, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jeffrey, Nos. CR-94-61; CA-98-403-7 (E.D. Va. Apr. 28 & July 3, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3