Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Ledford, 01-8034 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-8034 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SCOTTIE P. LEDFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-259, CA-00-3027-6-13) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scottie P. Ledfor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SCOTTIE P. LEDFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-259, CA-00-3027-6-13) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scottie P. Ledford, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Scottie P. Ledford 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 opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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 States v. Ledford, Nos. CR-99-259; CA- 00-3027-6-13 (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 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