Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. United States, 02-7387 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7387 Visitors: 27
Filed: Feb. 27, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7387 JOHN HENRY JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-892-7) Submitted: January 29, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7387 JOHN HENRY JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-892-7) Submitted: January 29, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Henry Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the district court construed as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Johnson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Johnson v. United States, No. CA-99- 892-7 (W.D. Va. June 20, 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