Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Little, 01-6355 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6355 Visitors: 31
Filed: May 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6355 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-86-18-C, CA-01-26-V) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6355 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-86-18-C, CA-01-26-V) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Aaron Little, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Michael Aaron Little 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. Little, Nos. CR-86-18-C; CA-01-26-V (W.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2001). Little’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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