Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Harris, 01-6640 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6640 Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODERICK EUGENE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-16, CA-00-440-1) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODERICK EUGENE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-16, CA-00-440-1) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick Eugene Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Timika Shafeek, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roderick Eugene Harris 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 opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-98-16; CA-00- 440-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 28, 2000; entered Mar. 29, 2001). 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