Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Walker v. United States, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is a court order dismissing Alfred Walker's appeal of a district court's denial of his § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible errors. Specifically, the appeals court determined that Walker could not seek relief under § 2241 because he did not meet the criteria for doing so as outlined in an earlier court case. As a result, the appeals court denied Walker's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-05-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6007

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order dismissing Alfred Walker's appeal of a district court's denial of his § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible errors. Specifically, the appeals court determined that Walker could not seek relief under § 2241 because he did not meet the criteria for doing so as outlined in an earlier court case. As a result, the appeals court denied Walker's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order dismissing Alfred Walker's appeal of a district court's denial of his § 2255 motion. The appeals court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible errors. Specifically, the appeals court determined that Walker could not seek relief under § 2241 because he did not meet the criteria for doing so as outlined in an earlier court case. As a result, the appeals court denied Walker's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6007

    ALFRED WILLIAM WALKER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; VANESSA P. ADAMS,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-00-851-5-HC)

    Submitted:

    April 27, 2001

    Decided:

    May 4, 2001

    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Alfred William Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alfred William Walker seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his action that the district court construed as a 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion.

    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.

    Walker v. United States, No. CA-00-851-5-HC (E.D.N.C. Dec.

    8, 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

    Walkers claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) is


    unavailing because he does not meet the test for proceeding under
    2241 set forth in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.
    2000).
    2

    You might also like