Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    United States v. Gullett, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Denny R. Gullett appealed the district court's denial of relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Gullett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Gullett, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    41 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Denny R. Gullett appealed the district court's denial of relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Gullett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7720

    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 court case in which Denny R. Gullett appealed the district court's denial of relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Gullett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Gullett, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Denny R. Gullett appealed the district court's denial of relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Gullett did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Rehearing granted, June 24, 2003

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7720

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DENNY R. GULLETT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-94-17, CA-97-456-2)

    Submitted:

    January 21, 2003

    Decided:

    March 7, 2003

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.


    Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Denny R. Gullett seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by
    the district court that Gullett has not made a substantial showing
    of the denial of a constitutional right.

    See United States v.

    Gullett, Nos. CR-94-17; CA-97-456-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 2002).


    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

    You might also like