Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Lancaster, 02-7226 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7226 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7226 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRANCE LANCASTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-01-1-HO, CA-02-40-4-H) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terranc
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7226 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRANCE LANCASTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-01-1-HO, CA-02-40-4-H) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, John Eric Evenson, II, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Terrance Lancaster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Lancaster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Lancaster, Nos. CR-01-1-HO; CA-02-40-4-H (E.D.N.C. June 14, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 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