Filed: Dec. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7286 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GIL DAUGHTRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CR-00-170-A, CA-01-1786-AM) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gil Daughtry,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7286 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GIL DAUGHTRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CR-00-170-A, CA-01-1786-AM) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gil Daughtry, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7286 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GIL DAUGHTRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CR-00-170-A, CA-01-1786-AM) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gil Daughtry, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly A. Riley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gil Daughtry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Daughtry has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Daughtry, Nos. CR-00-170-A; CA-01-1786-AM (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 7, 2002; entered Aug. 8, 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