Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Chiles, 01-7825 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7825 Visitors: 47
Filed: Feb. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7825 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL RENARD CHILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-7, CA-01-36-7) Submitted: February 11, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Renar
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7825 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL RENARD CHILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-7, CA-01-36-7) Submitted: February 11, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Renard Chiles, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Renard Chiles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Chiles’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See United States v. Chiles, Nos. CR-94-7; CA-01-36-7 (W.D. Va. July 12 & Oct. 25, 2001). We also deny Chiles’ motion to expedite his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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