Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Hall, 01-6308 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6308 Visitors: 31
Filed: May 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6308 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALAND TRACY HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-92, CA-01-4-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6308 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALAND TRACY HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-92, CA-01-4-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aland Tracy Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aland Tracy Hall appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000); and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no re- versible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hall, Nos. CR-94-92; CA-01-4-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 5 and 24, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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