Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WADEROY C.M. SENIOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-95-74, CA-98-731-3) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WADEROY C.M. SENIOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-95-74, CA-98-731-3) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WADEROY C.M. SENIOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-95-74, CA-98-731-3)
Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Waderoy C.M. Senior, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Waderoy C.M. Senior seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court. See United States v. Senior, Nos. CR-95-74;
CA-98-731-3 (E.D. Va. July 27, 1999). We also note that Senior’s
§ 2255 motion was untimely. See Brown v. Angelone,
150 F.3d 370,
375-76 (4th Cir. 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2