Case ID: f-appx_50/html/0630-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lee SADLER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lee Sadler, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 02-7117, 02-7408.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 14, 2002.
    Walter Lee Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    No. 02-7117 affirmed and No. 02-7408 dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Walter Sadler contests both the denial of several motions he filed following the issuance of a warrant for his arrest for violations of his supervised release and the dismissal without prejudice of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as successive. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s orders in No. 02-7117 and dismiss the appeal in No. 02-7408.

In No. 02-7117, Sadler challenges the denial of his motions requesting appointment of counsel, a bond hearing, and the dismissal of the supervised release violation charge. However, the record indicates there was sufficient probable cause for the district court to find Sadler violated his supervised release, to issue a warrant for his arrest, to have him detained pending a hearing on those charges. See 18 U.S.C. § 3606 (2000). Further, because the district court had not yet scheduled a hearing, Sadler’s request for appointment of counsel was premature. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying those motions.

In No. 02-7408, Sadler seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his § 2255 motion filed subsequent to his arrest for violating the terms of his supervised release. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Sadler has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Sadler, Nos. CR-95-134; CA-02-334-3-V (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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. 02-7117 — AFFIRMED.

No. 02-7408 — DISMISSED.