Filed: Jun. 02, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7613 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CAMILLE FORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-1206) Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: June 2, 2003 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7613 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CAMILLE FORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-1206) Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: June 2, 2003 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ca..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7613 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CAMILLE FORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-1206) Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: June 2, 2003 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Camille Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Camille Ford appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reopen her previous § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Ford, Nos. CR-94-163; CA- 98-1206 (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2002). 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
