Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Fewell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Timothy Fewell's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion to reconsider/reopen a prior action filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court properly construed Fewell's motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Before filing such a motion in district court, Fewell must obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. As Fewell did not obtain such authorization, the district court correctly dismissed his motion. The Court of Appeals therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-04-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6077

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Timothy Fewell's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion to reconsider/reopen a prior action filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court properly construed Fewell's motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Before filing such a motion in district court, Fewell must obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. As Fewell did not obtain such authorization, the district court correctly dismissed his motion. The Court of Appeals therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Fewell, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Timothy Fewell's appeal of a district court's denial of his motion to reconsider/reopen a prior action filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court properly construed Fewell's motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Before filing such a motion in district court, Fewell must obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals. As Fewell did not obtain such authorization, the district court correctly dismissed his motion. The Court of Appeals therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6077

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY LEE FEWELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-92-284-P, CA-96-444-P)

    Submitted:

    March 9, 1999

    Decided:

    April 19, 1999

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Timothy Lee Fewell, Appellant Pro Se.
    James Michael Sullivan,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy Lee Fewell seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying his motion to reconsider/reopen a prior action filed under
    28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1996), and related motions.*
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    The district court properly construed

    Fewells motion to reconsider/reopen as a second or successive


    2255 motion.

    Before filing a second or successive motion in the

    district court, Fewell must obtain authorization from this court.


    See 28 U.S.C.A. 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255 (West Supp. 1998).

    Because

    Fewell has not obtained such authorization, the district courts


    dismissal of his motion to reconsider/reopen was not in error.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal. 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

    Fewell has waived appellate review of the denial of the


    related motions by failing to present argument in his informal
    brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
    2

    You might also like