Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Sullivan, 03-6347 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6347 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 27, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6347 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAVARALD ANTONIO SULLIVAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-97-797, CA-01-2226) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6347



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAVARALD ANTONIO SULLIVAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-97-797, CA-01-2226)


Submitted:   May 15, 2003                   Decided:   May 27, 2003


Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Javarald Antonio Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.   Miller Williams
Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Javarald Antonio Sullivan 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 Sullivan has not made a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
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

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