Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Hope, 02-6089 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6089 Visitors: 27
Filed: May 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC BERNARD HOPE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-99-7-V, CA-01-51-3-V-1) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Bernard H
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC BERNARD HOPE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-99-7-V, CA-01-51-3-V-1) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Bernard Hope, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric Bernard Hope 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hope, Nos. CR-99-7-V; CA-01- 51-3-V-1 (W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 19, 2001, entered Dec. 20, 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