Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Young, 01-7296 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7296 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7296 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-112, CA-01-461) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7296 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-112, CA-01-461) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Arnold Young, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Arnold Young appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason- ing of the district court. United States v. Young, Nos. CR-88-112; CA-01-461 (S.D.W. Va. July 17, 2001). Additionally, we deny Young’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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