Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Linton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Brian Linton filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence based on a defective indictment. The district court denied the motion on the merits. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that Linton failed to obtain authorization for a second habeas petition as required. As a result, the court found that Linton was not entitled to relief under the statute. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-01-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7610

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Brian Linton filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence based on a defective indictment. The district court denied the motion on the merits. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that Linton failed to obtain authorization for a second habeas petition as required. As a result, the court found that Linton was not entitled to relief under the statute. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Linton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Brian Linton filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence based on a defective indictment. The district court denied the motion on the merits. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and determined that Linton failed to obtain authorization for a second habeas petition as required. As a result, the court found that Linton was not entitled to relief under the statute. The court also 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7610

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BRIAN LINTON, a/k/a Bee,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CR-95-41-H)

    Submitted:

    January 22, 2003

    Decided:

    January 30, 2003

    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Brian Linton, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Brian Linton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on the merits on his motion to vacate
    the conviction and sentence based on defective indictment, which
    motion is properly construed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    We have reviewed the record and conclude that because Linton failed
    to obtain authorization to file a second or successive application
    for writ of habeas corpus before filing his motion in the district
    court, see 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A), he is not entitled to relief
    under 2255.

    Moreover, we find that Linton is not entitled to a

    certificate of appealability. See generally Slack v. McDaniel, 529


    U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    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

    You might also like