Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL W. SAMUEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-94-773) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL W. SAMUEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-94-773) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRELL W. SAMUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-94-773)
Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darrell W. Samuel seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court.* United States v. Samuel, No. CR-94-773 (D.S.C. June 1,
2000). 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
*
Samuel filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s re-
port. He raised specific objections to four of the claims asserted
in his § 2255 motion and supplements to the motion. Samuel has
waived appellate review of the claims for which no objections were
noted. See Crum v. Sullivan,
921 F.2d 642, 645 (6th Cir. 1990);
Praylow v. Martin,
761 F.2d 179, 181 n.1 (4th Cir. 1985) (party
precluded from raising issue on appeal when no objections filed as
to that issue).
2