Filed: Jun. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6379 DORIS JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-38-G, CA-01-634-1) Submitted: June 14, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doris Jackson, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6379 DORIS JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-38-G, CA-01-634-1) Submitted: June 14, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doris Jackson, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6379 DORIS JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-38-G, CA-01-634-1) Submitted: June 14, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doris Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Doris Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994) petition for a writ of coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. United States, Nos. CR-92-38-G; CA- 01-634-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2002). 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. AFFIRMED 2
