Case ID: f-appx_75/html/0917-01.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. Barrington ISAACS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7715.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 19, 2003.
    Decided Sept. 26, 2003.
    Barrington Isaacs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Barrington Isaacs appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. Although we initially dismissed this appeal on the ground that Isaacs failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability, we granted Isaacs’s rehearing petition and have now considered the appeal on the merits. Based on our review of the record, however, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Isaacs, Nos. CR-98-356; CA-01-2230-2-18 (D.S.C. filed July 8, 2002 & entered July 11, 2002; filed Sept. 3, 2002 & entered Sept. 5, 2002); see also Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (declining to consider claim raised for the first time on appeal). We deny Isaacs’s motion for judicial notice. 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.