United States v. King

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 13, 2003
Docket02-7642
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. King (United States v. King) 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. King, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7642

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DENNIS MARC KING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-36, CA-00-714-2)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Marc King, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Dennis Marc King 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 King

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 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

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. King, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-king-ca4-2003.