Filed: Jan. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7348 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD NOBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-95-488, CA-00-3199-3-19) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 2, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Noble, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7348 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD NOBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-95-488, CA-00-3199-3-19) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 2, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Noble, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7348 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD NOBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-95-488, CA-00-3199-3-19) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 2, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerald Noble seeks to appeal the district court’s order grant- ing the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denying 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 appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Noble, Nos. CR-95-488; CA-00-3199-3-19 (D.S.C. June 18, 2001). 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