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)
01-8050•United States of America v. David Fitzgerald Lightner
01-8050Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 25, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-8050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-133-P, CA-01-580-3-2-MU)
Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 25, 2002
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F.
Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
David Fitzgerald Lightner seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001). 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. See United States v. Lightner, Nos. CR-93-133-
P; CA-01-580-3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 9, 2001, entered Nov. 13,
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.