Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Williamson, 02-7640 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7640 Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS TYRONE WILLIAMSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-00-288, CA-02-81-1) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS TYRONE WILLIAMSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-00-288, CA-02-81-1) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Tyrone Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marcus Tyrone Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Williamson’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and the district court that Williamson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Williamson, Nos. CR-00- 288-1; CA-02-81-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 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