Filed: Sep. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7057 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LEONARDO POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-24-FO) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7057 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LEONARDO POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-24-FO) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7057 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LEONARDO POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-24-FO) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Leonardo Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Leonardo Powell appeals the district court’s order denying his request for an extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Powell, No. CR-99-24-FO (E.D.N.C. filed June 7, 2002 & entered June 10, 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. AFFIRMED 2
