Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Gomes, 01-7239 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7239 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7239 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROLAND ABLE GOMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-88-38, CA-01-61-5-01-V) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7239 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROLAND ABLE GOMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-88-38, CA-01-61-5-01-V) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roland Able Gomes, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roland Able Gomes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion construed as filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gomes, Nos. CR-88-38; CA-01-61-5-01-V (W.D.N.C. May 31, 2001; filed July 5, 2001 & entered July 12, 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