Filed: Sep. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6743 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUDLEY KIM SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-7, CA-01-796) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6743 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUDLEY KIM SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-7, CA-01-796) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DUDLEY KIM SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-99-7, CA-01-796)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dudley Kim Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dudley Kim Smith 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 Smith
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322
(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