Filed: May 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7671 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHAUNCY DONZELLOS MOUZONE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-97-302, CA-00-1795-3) Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncy Donzell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7671 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHAUNCY DONZELLOS MOUZONE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-97-302, CA-00-1795-3) Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncy Donzello..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7671
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHAUNCY DONZELLOS MOUZONE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-97-302, CA-00-1795-3)
Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chauncy Donzellos Mouzone, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth
Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Chauncy Mouzone, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude Mouzone has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S.
,
123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). 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