Filed: May 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM STEPHEN JAVAGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-7, CA-98-64-2) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM STEPHEN JAVAGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-7, CA-98-64-2) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM STEPHEN JAVAGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-7, CA-98-64-2) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Stephen Javage, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Stephen Javage 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, including the transcript of the hearing on the motion, and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on reasoning of the district court.* See United States v. Javage, Nos. CR-95-7; CA-98- 64-2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 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. AFFIRMED * The district court granted a certificate of appealability. 2