Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6879 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus QUINTON D. RAINEY, a/k/a Q, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-69) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6879 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus QUINTON D. RAINEY, a/k/a Q, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-69) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6879 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus QUINTON D. RAINEY, a/k/a Q, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-69) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quinton D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Quinton Rainey appeals from the district court’s orders de- nying his motions to reconsider the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinions disclose no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rainey, No. CR-94-69 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2001; May 11, 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
