Filed: Jul. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6809 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID J. PINGLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-39) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Pingley, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6809 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID J. PINGLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-39) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Pingley, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6809 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID J. PINGLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-39) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Pingley, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David J. Pingley 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Pingley, No. CR-94-39 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 9, 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
