Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Singletary, 01-6778 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6778 Visitors: 23
Filed: Sep. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES HARRISON SINGLETARY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-98-240-4, CA-00-2332-4-22) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: September 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES HARRISON SINGLETARY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-98-240-4, CA-00-2332-4-22) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: September 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Harrison Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Harrison Singletary 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. Singletary, Nos. CR-98- 240-4; CA-00-2332-4-22 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 5, 2001; entered Apr. 6, 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