Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Harris, 01-7669 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7669 Visitors: 57
Filed: Jan. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7669 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK LAMAR HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-94-297, CA-98-2795-4-12) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7669 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK LAMAR HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-94-297, CA-98-2795-4-12) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Lamar Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patrick Lamar Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. 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 district court. See United Stats v. Harris, Nos. CR-94-297; CA-98-2795-4-12 (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 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