United States v. Nelson

57 F. App'x 165
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Nelson. Read the opinion of the Court — 88 F. App'x 647
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 7, 2003·No. 02-6632·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Albert Shaw Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and conclude substantially for the reasons stated by the district court that Nelson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Nelson, Nos. CR-95-333; CA-99-4168-5-22 (D.S.C. Aug 1, 2001; Oct. 1, 2001); Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir.1976). 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

United States v. Nelson, 57 F. App'x 165 (4th Cir. 2003).

57 F. App'x 165 (United States v. Nelson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Herbert W. Boeckenhaupt v. United States
537 F.2d 1182 (Fourth Circuit, 1976)