Filed: Dec. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6665 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AUDLEY CASANOVA, a/k/a Robert King, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-108, CA-99-1100-1) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6665 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AUDLEY CASANOVA, a/k/a Robert King, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-108, CA-99-1100-1) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6665 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AUDLEY CASANOVA, a/k/a Robert King, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-108, CA-99-1100-1) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Audley Casanova, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Audley Casanova seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Casanova, Nos. CR-95-108; CA-99-1100-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 21, 2001, entered Mar. 23, 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