Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TAMARA LLAMAS, a/k/a Tamara Deyton, a/k/a Tamara Mullins, a/k/a Tamara Smith, a/k/a Tammy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-63-H, CA-00-254-7-H) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHA
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TAMARA LLAMAS, a/k/a Tamara Deyton, a/k/a Tamara Mullins, a/k/a Tamara Smith, a/k/a Tammy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-63-H, CA-00-254-7-H) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TAMARA LLAMAS, a/k/a Tamara Deyton, a/k/a Tamara Mullins, a/k/a Tamara Smith, a/k/a Tammy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-63-H, CA-00-254-7-H) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tamara Llamas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, J. Frank Bradsher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tamara Llamas seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Llamas, Nos. CR-97-63-H; CA-00- 254-7-H (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 5, 2001; entered Apr. 9, 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. DISMISSED 2