Filed: May 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DOUGLAS W. PLEASANTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-21, CA-00-637-5-F) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas W. Plea
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DOUGLAS W. PLEASANTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-21, CA-00-637-5-F) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas W. Pleas..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS W. PLEASANTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-21, CA-00-637-5-F)
Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas W. Pleasants, Appellant Pro Se. Janice McKenzie Cole,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas W. Pleasants 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 Pleasants’
motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.
Pleasants, Nos. CR-96-21; CA-00-637-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2001);
see also United States v. Sanders,
247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 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