Filed: Mar. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE H. DEVILLASEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 97-471-CCB, CA-00-3196-CCB) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE H. DEVILLASEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 97-471-CCB, CA-00-3196-CCB) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE H. DEVILLASEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 97-471-CCB, CA-00-3196-CCB) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone H. Devillasee, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tyrone H. Devillasee 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. Devillasee, Nos. CR-97- 471-CCB; CA-00-3196-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 11, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2