United States v. Porter

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Porter

37 F. App'x 707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 2002

Docket01-8053

StatusUnpublished

This text of 37 F. App'x 707 (United States v. Porter) 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. Porter, 37 F. App'x 707 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Porter, Nos. CR-85-62; CA-01-577 (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 24, 2002; entered Oct. 25, 2002). In addition, we find that Porter’s claims do not fall within § 2255’s savings clause. Thus, we decline Porter’s invitation to construe his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 334-35 (4th Cir.2000) (providing standard for seeking relief under § 2241 based on the inadequacy of § 2255). 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.

Wayne Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Porter, Nos. CR-85-62; CA-01-577 (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 24, 2002; entered Oct. 25, 2002). In addition, we find that Porter’s claims do not fall within § 2255’s savings clause. Thus, we decline Porter’s invitation to construe his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 334-35 (4th Cir.2000) (providing standard for seeking relief under § 2241 based on the inadequacy of § 2255). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F. App'x 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-porter-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack