Filed: Dec. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES NEAL, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-94-27, CA-96-1624-0) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Neal,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES NEAL, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-94-27, CA-96-1624-0) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Neal, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES NEAL, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-94-27, CA-96-1624-0) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Neal, III, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Neal, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion 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. Neal, Nos. CR-94-27; CA-96-1624-0 (D.S.C. Apr. 27 & June 15, 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