Filed: Aug. 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6550 NATHANIEL JOHN LITTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-97-41, CA-01-84) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel John Little
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6550 NATHANIEL JOHN LITTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-97-41, CA-01-84) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel John Little,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6550 NATHANIEL JOHN LITTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-97-41, CA-01-84) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel John Little, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathaniel John Little seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Little v. United States, Nos. CR-97-41; CA-01- 84 (E.D. Va. 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
