Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Harris, 01-7689 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7689 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7689 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ANTHONY HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-255, CA-01-60-1) Submitted: February 12, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7689 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ANTHONY HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-255, CA-01-60-1) Submitted: February 12, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Anthony Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Anthony Harris 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Harris, Nos. CR-99-255; CA-01-60-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 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
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