Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jones, 02-6352 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6352 Visitors: 41
Filed: May 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6352 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BANDELE M. JONES, Defendant -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-95-51, CA-02-1) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bandele M. Jones
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6352 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BANDELE M. JONES, Defendant -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-95-51, CA-02-1) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bandele M. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Bandele M. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief in his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-95-51; CA-02-1 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 6, 2002). Additionally, we deny Jones’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to amend the record, and for oral argument, which we dispense with 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