Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. United States, 02-6746 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6746 Visitors: 22
Filed: Nov. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6746 ALONZO CALVIN JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-2790-3-20BC) Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 26, 2002 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6746 ALONZO CALVIN JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-2790-3-20BC) Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 26, 2002 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alonzo Calvin Jones, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alonzo Calvin Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), but construed as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Jones has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Jones v. United States, No. CA-02-2790-2-20BC (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 2002). 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
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