Filed: Feb. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7216 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WESLEY HODGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-54-BO, CA-99-178-4-BO) Submitted: January 14, 2002 Decided: February 4, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wesl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7216 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WESLEY HODGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-54-BO, CA-99-178-4-BO) Submitted: January 14, 2002 Decided: February 4, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wesle..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7216
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WESLEY HODGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-54-BO, CA-99-178-4-BO)
Submitted: January 14, 2002 Decided: February 4, 2002
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wesley Hodge, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Hodge seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-
ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001).
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 dis-
trict court.* See United States v. Hodge, Nos. CR-96-54-BO, CA-99-
178-4-BO (E.D.N.C. June 14, 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
*
We note that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying Hodge’s motions to amend his § 2255 motion as such
amendments would have been futile. See United States v. Pittman,
209 F.3d 314, 317-18 (4th Cir. 2000), and United States v. Sanders,
247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir. 2001).
2