Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    United States v. Barton, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal by Norman Malcolm Barton of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Barton, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal by Norman Malcolm Barton of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7214

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal by Norman Malcolm Barton of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views2 pages

    United States v. Barton, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed an appeal by Norman Malcolm Barton of a district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's opinion. It denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-7214

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NORMAN MALCOLM BARTON, a/k/a Doggie,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CR-88-46-H, CA-01-295-5-H)

    Submitted:

    February 14, 2002

    Decided:

    February 22, 2002

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Norman Malcolm Barton, Appellant Pro Se. John Stuart Bruce, United
    States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States
    Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Norman Malcolm Barton seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    2001).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opin-

    ion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certif-

    icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of


    the district court.

    United States v. Barton, Nos. CR-88-46-H; CA-

    01-295-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 1, 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

    You might also like