Filed: Jul. 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6741 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDDIE JONES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-79) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Jones, Jr., Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6741 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDDIE JONES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-79) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Jones, Jr., Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6741 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDDIE JONES, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-79) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Freddie Jones, Jr., after unsuccessfully pursuing direct and collateral relief, now relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (1994) to appeal his sentence and challenge the assistance of his counsel. Jones’ reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (1994) is misplaced; this statute provides a defendant may directly appeal his sentence, but it provides no mechanism through which he may reopen a direct appeal, or move successively for collateral review. Accordingly, we 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