Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Tawalbeh, 02-6835 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6835 Visitors: 77
Filed: May 30, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Panel rehearing granted and en banc rehearing denied in opinion filed 5/30/03 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6835 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FAHED T. TAWALBEH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-24-R, CA-00-858) Submitted: December 18, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Ci
More
Panel rehearing granted and en banc rehearing denied in opinion filed 5/30/03 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6835 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FAHED T. TAWALBEH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-24-R, CA-00-858) Submitted: December 18, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert F. Rider, ROBERT F. RIDER, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Fahed T. Tawalbeh 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 reasons stated by the district court that Tawalbeh has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Tawalbeh, Nos. CR-97-24-R; CA-00-858 (W.D. Va. Feb. 22, 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 3
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