Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Gilliard, 01-8059 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-8059 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8059 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD ANTHONY GILLIARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-108, CA-00-308-2-08) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8059 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD ANTHONY GILLIARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-108, CA-00-308-2-08) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Anthony Gilliard, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald Anthony Gilliard 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court that the motion was untimely. United States v. Gilliard, Nos. CR-92-108; CA-00-308-2-08 (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 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