Filed: Jun. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6526 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-98- 111-HNM, CA-00-3317-HNM) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Anthony Thomas,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6526 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-98- 111-HNM, CA-00-3317-HNM) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Anthony Thomas, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6526 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-98- 111-HNM, CA-00-3317-HNM) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Anthony Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, James Clarke Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leroy Anthony Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for production of a certified copy of the jury instructions in relation to his previously adjudicated motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). Thomas’ § 2255 motion has been finally decided, and he is accordingly not entitled to a transcript of the jury instructions at this juncture. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). Thus, we conclude the district court’s denial of Thomas’ motion is proper. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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