Case ID: f-appx_14/html/0269-02.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. Tony B. ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony B. Alexander, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony B. Alexander, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony B. Alexander, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 01-6452, 01-6500, 01-6571, 01-6572.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2001.
    Decided July 31, 2001.
    Tony B. Alexander, pro se.
    Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In Appeal Number 01-6452, Tony B. Alexander appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions for a certificate of appealability, for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), for a ruling on his Rule 60(b)(6) motion and his motion for a certificate of appealability, and for a rehearing and to supplement his Rule 60(b)(3), (4) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Alexander’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Alexander, Nos. CR-95-178-V; CA-98-106-3-V (W.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2001).

In Appeal Number 01-6500, Alexander appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward departure. Appeal Number 01-6571 is Alexander’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), (4), and Number 01-6572 is Alexander’s appeal from the denial of his emergency motion requesting the issuance of an opinion on his Rule 60(b)(3), (4) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Alexander’s motions for appointment of counsel in each of these appeals and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Alexander, No. CR-95-178 (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 12, 2001), (entered Mar. 13, 2001; entered Mar. 26, 2001; filed Mar. 26, 2001, entered Mar. 27, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED.

AFFIRMED.