Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Sanchez-Duarte, 02-7771 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7771 Visitors: 34
Filed: Feb. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7771 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAVIER SANCHEZ-DUARTE, a/k/a Javier Duarte- Sanchez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-342, CA-02-245-1) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7771 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAVIER SANCHEZ-DUARTE, a/k/a Javier Duarte- Sanchez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-342, CA-02-245-1) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Javier Sanchez-Duarte, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Javier Sanchez-Duarte 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 Sanchez-Duarte has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Sanchez-Duarte, Nos. CR-00-342; CA-02-245-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Oct. 16, 2002; entered Oct. 17, 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