Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Bryson, 01-7549 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7549
Filed: Nov. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7549 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-240, CA-01-2795-8-20) Submitted: October 24, 2001 Decided: November 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7549 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-240, CA-01-2795-8-20) Submitted: October 24, 2001 Decided: November 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William M. Bryson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 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. United States v. Bryson, Nos. CR-01-240; CA- 01-2795-8-20 (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2001). Additionally, we deny Bryson’s motion for release pending appeal. 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