From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Mcclinton

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Feb 23, 2011
421 F. App'x 310 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-7287.

Submitted: January 28, 2011.

Decided: February 23, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:89-cr-00098-FDW-1).

David Charles McClinton, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Magee Tompkins, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


David Charles McClinton appeals the district court's order construing McClinton's petition for a writ of error coram nobis as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and denying it as successive and unauthorized. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. McClinton, No. 3:89-cr-00098-FDW-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Mcclinton

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Feb 23, 2011
421 F. App'x 310 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

U.S. v. Mcclinton

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Charles MCCLINTON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Feb 23, 2011

Citations

421 F. App'x 310 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Dockery

Therefore, based on the relief sought in the Motion, this Court construes it as another unauthorized,…

United States v. Dockery

Therefore, based on the relief sought in the Motion, this Court construes it as another unauthorized,…