Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Lightner, 01-8050 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-8050 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-133-P, CA-01-580-3-2-MU) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 25, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-133-P, CA-01-580-3-2-MU) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 25, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Fitzgerald Lightner 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lightner, Nos. CR-93-133- P; CA-01-580-3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 9, 2001, entered Nov. 13, 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