Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Wayman, 99-6969 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6969 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6969 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANKLIN DELANOR WAYMAN, a/k/a Franklin Delano Wayman, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-43, CA-97-816-5) Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 13, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6969 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANKLIN DELANOR WAYMAN, a/k/a Franklin Delano Wayman, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-43, CA-97-816-5) Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 13, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Delanor Wayman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Franklin Delanor Wayman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Wayman’s motions for a show cause hearing and to provide documents, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Wayman, Nos. CR-96-43; CA-97-816-5 (S.D.W. Va. July 9, 1999).* 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 * Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that the order was entered on the docket sheet on July 9, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer