The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-6812•United States of America v. Joveneto Monzello Tinsley, a/k/a Jo Jo
00-6812Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 5, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6812
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOVENETO MONZELLO TINSLEY, a/k/a Jo Jo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-98-111, CA-99-2882-10)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: January 5, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joveneto Monzello Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth
Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Joveneto Monzello Tinsley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court. United States v. Tinsley, Nos. CR-98-111; CA-
99-2882-10 (D.S.C. May 22, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.