Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Evans v. Ray, 01-6545 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6545 Visitors: 53
Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6545 WILLIE FRANKLIN EVANS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus M. E. RAY; JANET RENO, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-2428-0-17-DB) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie F
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6545 WILLIE FRANKLIN EVANS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus M. E. RAY; JANET RENO, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-2428-0-17-DB) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Franklin Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Willie Franklin Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Because Evans can potentially refile his claims under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000),* we find that he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a consti- tutional right. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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. AFFIRMED * We express no opinion on the ultimate success or failure of a § 2255 motion. 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