Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Wilson, 02-7905 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7905 Visitors: 33
Filed: Feb. 27, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-34-BR, CA-01-215-7-BR) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-34-BR, CA-01-215-7-BR) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrice Behanzin Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patrice Behanzin Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Wilson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Wilson, Nos. CR-96-34-BR; CA-01-215-7-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 19, 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