United States v. Cockerill

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Cockerill

10 F. App'x 183

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 29, 2001·No. No. 01-6382·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Newton Coekerill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court’s judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Cockerill’s motion to stay the briefing schedule, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cockerill, Nos. CR-98-524-DWS; CA-00-2914-3 (D.S.C. Feb. 9 & 12, 2001). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Newton Coekerill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court’s judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Cockerill’s motion to stay the briefing schedule, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cockerill, Nos. CR-98-524-DWS; CA-00-2914-3 (D.S.C. Feb. 9 & 12, 2001). 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.

United States v. Cockerill, 10 F. App'x 183 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

10 F. App'x 183 (United States v. Cockerill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related