United States v. Pruess

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6346
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY ROLAND PRUESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-6803
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY ROLAND PRUESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-94-19, CR-97-300, CA-99-79-V)
Submitted: September 25, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Roland Pruess, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Roland Pruess appeals the district court’s orders
denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and declining
to reconsider the denial of his petition. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. The district court’s final order dispensing with the § 2241
petition is affirmed on the reasoning of the district court. See
United States v. Pruess, No. CR-94-19 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2002). We
note that although Pruess’s post-judgment motion tolled the running
of the period in which to file a timely notice of appeal, see Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), the motion did not entitled Pruess to relief
whether considered on its merits, or construed as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), motion. We therefore affirm the denial of
Pruess’s motion substantially on the reasoning of the district
court. 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
3