Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jones, 01-6246 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6246 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jul. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6246 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRON FIONE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-98-89, CA-00-142-1-T) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 11, 2001 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barron Fione
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6246 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRON FIONE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-98-89, CA-00-142-1-T) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 11, 2001 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barron Fione Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barron Fione Jones appeals the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-98-89; CA-00-142-T (W.D.N.C. June 26, 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
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