Filed: Apr. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS SHARMALE NEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-91-49) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 26, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Sharmale Neal, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS SHARMALE NEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-91-49) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 26, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Sharmale Neal, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS SHARMALE NEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-91-49) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 26, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Sharmale Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Thomas Sharmale Neal appeals the district court order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994), seeking vacatur of his 1991 conviction for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm. Neal failed to show such action was necessary to achieve justice or that sound reasons exist for not raising this claim earlier. We deny Neal’s motion to authorize preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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