Filed: Jan. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7386 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY GLENN JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-192, CA-02-11-1) Submitted: December 12, 2002 Decided: January 3, 2003 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7386 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY GLENN JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-192, CA-02-11-1) Submitted: December 12, 2002 Decided: January 3, 2003 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7386 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRACY GLENN JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-192, CA-02-11-1) Submitted: December 12, 2002 Decided: January 3, 2003 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy Glenn Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tracy Glenn Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Jackson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Jackson, Nos. CR- 00-192; CA-02-11-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 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