Filed: Aug. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6738 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. GINDRAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-01-661; CA-03-2321) Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Gindraw
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6738 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. GINDRAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-01-661; CA-03-2321) Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Gindraw,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL A. GINDRAW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-01-661; CA-03-2321)
Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Gindraw, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Gindraw seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Gindraw has not made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (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 -