Filed: Mar. 14, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7948 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH MICHAEL DIXON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 99-112-S, CA-02-3893-S) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Michael Dixon
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7948 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH MICHAEL DIXON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 99-112-S, CA-02-3893-S) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Michael Dixon,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7948
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH MICHAEL DIXON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
99-112-S, CA-02-3893-S)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Michael Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens
Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Michael Dixon 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
that Dixon has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. ,
2003 WL
431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We deny Dixon’s motion to file a
supplemental informal brief. 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