Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jones, 02-7121 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7121 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jan. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7121 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY JONES, a/k/a Boo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-234, CA-99-186-L) Submitted: December 20, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Jones,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7121 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY JONES, a/k/a Boo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-234, CA-99-186-L) Submitted: December 20, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gregory Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Jones has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Jones, No. CR-95-234; CA-99-186-L (D. Md. May 21, 2002; June 27, 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