Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    Jeffrey Blake Johnson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and denial of a certificate of appealability. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court denied Johnson's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Johnson was not entitled to relief under § 2255 or a certificate of appealability.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-02-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6896

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jeffrey Blake Johnson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and denial of a certificate of appealability. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court denied Johnson's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Johnson was not entitled to relief under § 2255 or a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views3 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jeffrey Blake Johnson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and denial of a certificate of appealability. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court denied Johnson's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that Johnson was not entitled to relief under § 2255 or a certificate of appealability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-6896

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 00-6940

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CR-94-61, CA-98-403-7)

    Submitted:

    February 8, 2001

    Decided:

    February 13, 2001

    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Jeffrey Blake Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Donald Ray Wolthuis,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jeffrey Blake Johnson seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability.

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to


    deny 2255 relief and the courts opinion denying a certificate of
    appealability, and we find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we

    deny Johnsons motion for a certificate of appealability and


    dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    United States v. Jeffrey, Nos. CR-94-61; CA-98-403-7 (E.D. Va. Apr.


    28 & July 3, 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