Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    United States v. Dixon, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cassel Dixon appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Dixon's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dixon's motion lacked merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Dixon, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    Cassel Dixon appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Dixon's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dixon's motion lacked merit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6804

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cassel Dixon appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Dixon's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dixon's motion lacked merit.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Dixon, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cassel Dixon appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Dixon's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Dixon's motion lacked merit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6804

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CASSEL DIXON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CR-97-7-V, CA-98-551-3)

    Submitted:

    August 23, 2001

    Decided:

    August 30, 2001

    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Cassel Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Hidgon, Jr., OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Cassel Dixon appeals 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 opinion and find no
    reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

    ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district


    court.

    See United States v. Dixon, Nos. CR-97-7-V; CA-98-551-3

    (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 30, 2001; entered Apr. 2, 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