Filed: May 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL L. PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-166, CA-94-377-1) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Da
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL L. PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-166, CA-94-377-1) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dar..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL L. PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-166, CA-94-377-1) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darrell L. Padgett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Padgett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Padgett, No. CR-91-166; CA-94-377-1 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 21, 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