Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7641 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY EDGAR KNOX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-98-13, CA-00-115) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7641 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY EDGAR KNOX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-98-13, CA-00-115) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7641 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY EDGAR KNOX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-98-13, CA-00-115) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy Edgar Knox, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tracy Edgar Knox 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. See United States v. Knox, Nos. CR-98-13; CA- 00-115 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 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 2