United States v. Braswell ( 2003 )

Filed: December 8, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 02-7740(L)
(CR-94-126-FO)
United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
James A. Braswell,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed March 14, 2003, as follows:
On page 3, line 10 of text: “Oct. 24, 2002” is corrected to
read “filed Aug. 27, 2002 & entered Aug. 28, 2002.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7740
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES A. BRASWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-7885
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES A. BRASWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-126-FO)
Submitted: February 25, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
No. 02-7740 affirmed and No. 02-7885 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
James A. Braswell, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
James A. Braswell appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for an evidentiary hearing to reconstruct transcripts of
his sentencing hearing, and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error or abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court in appeal No. 02-
7740. See United States v. Braswell, No. CR-94-126-FO (E.D.N.C.
filed May 15, 2002 & entered May 17, 2002), and deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss appeal No. 02-7885. See United States
v. Braswell, No. CR-94-126-FO (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 27, 2002 &
entered Aug. 28, 2002). 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.
No. 02-7740 - AFFIRMED
No. 02-7885 - DISMISSED
4