Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jones, 00-7316 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7316 Visitors: 66
Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY LEMUEL JONES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-97-343, CA-99-793-3) Submitted: December 5, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lemuel
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY LEMUEL JONES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-97-343, CA-99-793-3) Submitted: December 5, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lemuel Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Lemuel Jones, Jr., 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. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-97-343; CA-99-793-3 (E.D. Va. June 27, 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 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