Filed: Sep. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6776 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE EDWARD HOPKINS, III, a/k/a W. E. Hopkins, a/k/a Willie Hopkins, a/k/a Bill Hopkins, a/k/a Little Bill, a/k/a Bill, Jr., a/k/a Sealed, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-97-9, CA-01-803-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 20
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6776 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE EDWARD HOPKINS, III, a/k/a W. E. Hopkins, a/k/a Willie Hopkins, a/k/a Bill Hopkins, a/k/a Little Bill, a/k/a Bill, Jr., a/k/a Sealed, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-97-9, CA-01-803-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 200..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6776 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE EDWARD HOPKINS, III, a/k/a W. E. Hopkins, a/k/a Willie Hopkins, a/k/a Bill Hopkins, a/k/a Little Bill, a/k/a Bill, Jr., a/k/a Sealed, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-97-9, CA-01-803-2) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Edward Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Willie Edward Hopkins, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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. United States v. Hopkins, Nos. CR-97-9; CA-01-803-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 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