United States v. Gregory Porter ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7704
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    GREGORY LAVON PORTER, a/k/a Big Honey,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:08-cr-00371-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00298-BO)
    Submitted:   May 30, 2013                     Decided:   June 6, 2013
    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory      Lavon    Porter       appeals      the    district      court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
    2012)    motion.       We    have     reviewed        the   record      and    find     no
    reversible error.        Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the
    reasons stated by the district court.                  United States v. Porter,
    Nos.    5:08-cr-00371-BO-1;         5:12-cv-00298-BO          (E.D.N.C.       Sept.   12,
    2012); cf. Lo v. Endicott, 
    506 F.3d 572
    , 575-76 (7th Cir. 2007);
    E.J.R.E. v.     United      States,   
    453 F.3d 1094
    ,      1097-98     (8th    Cir.
    2006); Shannon     v.    Newland,      
    410 F.3d 1083
    ,      1088-89     (9th    Cir.
    2005).     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions     are     adequately      presented        in   the    materials
    before   this   court     and    argument      would    not    aid     the    decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    2