Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Smith, 03-6743 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6743 Visitors: 25
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6743 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUDLEY KIM SMITH, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
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                               UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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