Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Crosby, 00-7560 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7560 Visitors: 29
Filed: Mar. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY ROY CROSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-96-361, CA-99-1835-4) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY ROY CROSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-96-361, CA-99-1835-4) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Roy Crosby, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OF- FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Roy Crosby 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 opin- ion and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Crosby, Nos. CR-96-361; CA- 99-1835-4 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 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 * We have confined our review to those issues raised in Ap- pellant’s informal brief, 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and to the extent Appellant seeks to raise claims not first presented to the district court, we decline to review such claims. 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