Filed: May 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOM AARON TATE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-147, CA-99-384-3-MU) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tom Aaron
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOM AARON TATE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-147, CA-99-384-3-MU) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tom Aaron T..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOM AARON TATE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-147, CA-99-384-3-MU) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tom Aaron Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tom Aaron Tate appeals 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 opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Tate, Nos. CR-94-147; CA-99-384- 3-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 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. AFFIRMED 2
