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)
01-6881•United States of America v. Kato Hainesworth
01-6881Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 16, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6881
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KATO HAINESWORTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-30, CA-00-409-3)
Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 16, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kato Hainesworth, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kato Hainesworth seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court. United States v. Hainesworth, Nos. CR-98-
30; CA-00-409-3 (E.D. Va. May 21, 2001). 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.