United States v. Hagwood

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 2003
Docket02-7520
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Hagwood (United States v. Hagwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hagwood, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BURTON BRAXTON HAGWOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-00-13, CA-01-68-3)

Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: April 4, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Burton Braxton Hagwood, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Burton Braxton Hagwood, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude Hagwood has not made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S.

, 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662).

Accordingly, we deny Hagwood’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(2000). We deny Hagwood’s motion requesting the removal from office

of the magistrate judge. 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Hagwood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hagwood-ca4-2003.