Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Johnson, 02-6937 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6937 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6937 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SEAN DARRELL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-98-138, CA-01-300-1) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Darrell
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6937 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SEAN DARRELL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-98-138, CA-01-300-1) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Darrell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sean Darrell Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Johnson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-9-138; CA-01-300-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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