United States v. Pendergrass
This text of United States v. Pendergrass (United States v. Pendergrass) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WAYTIS PENDERGRASS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-92-216, CA-01-2738-4-22)
Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Waytis Pendergrass, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Waytis Pendergrass seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion to reconsider the denial of relief under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States
v. Pendergrass, Nos. CR-92-216; CA-01-2738-4-22 (D.S.C. filed Dec.
5, 2001; entered Dec. 6, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Pendergrass, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pendergrass-ca4-2002.