Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Smith, 02-6426 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6426 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 07, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY ANTONIO SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-129, CA-01-3599-6-13) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Anto
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-6426



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ANTHONY ANTONIO SMITH,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-97-129, CA-01-3599-6-13)


Submitted:   May 30, 2002                   Decided:    June 7, 2002


Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Antonio Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Anthony Antonio Smith 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. See United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-97-129; CA-01-

3599-6-13 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 30, 2002 & entered Jan. 31, 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.




                                                         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