Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ernest J. Hodges appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Hodges did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. As such, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Ernest J. Hodges appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Hodges did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. As such, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-10-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7108

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ernest J. Hodges appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Hodges did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. As such, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ernest J. Hodges appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Hodges did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. As such, the appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 02-7108

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ERNEST J. HODGES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-99-58-BO, CA-02-47-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    October 10, 2002

    Decided:

    October 17, 2002

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ernest J. Hodges, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Fitzgerald Whitted,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ernest J. Hodges 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 Hodges has not made a substantial showing
    of the denial of a constitutional right.

    See United States v.

    Hodges, Nos. CR-99-58-BO; CA-02-47-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 13, 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