Filed: Oct. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6976 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COLLEEN SEXTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-9, CA-99-840) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Colleen Sexton, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6976 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COLLEEN SEXTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-9, CA-99-840) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Colleen Sexton, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6976 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COLLEEN SEXTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-9, CA-99-840) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Colleen Sexton, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Colleen Sexton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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. Sexton, Nos. CR-97-9; CA- 99-840 (W.D. Va. Mar. 28, 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
