Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Haynes, 02-6160 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6160 Visitors: 43
Filed: Jun. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6160 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY ALLEN HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-27, CA-00-962-2) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6160 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY ALLEN HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-27, CA-00-962-2) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Abell, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney Allen Haynes 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. United States v. Haynes, Nos. CR-98-27; CA-00-962- 2 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 21, 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