Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Jose Efrain Caceres, 92-7091 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-7091 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 23, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 986 F.2d 1415 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Efrain CACERES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-7091. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: February 1, 1993 Decided: February 23, 1993 Appeal from the United
More

986 F.2d 1415

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jose Efrain CACERES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-7091.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 1993
Decided: February 23, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Norwood Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-89-202-1-WS, CA-91-515-6)

Jose Efrain Caceres, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Holt Edmunds, Jr., United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Jose Efrain Caceres appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Caceres, Nos. CR-89-202-1-WS, CA-91-515-6 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 1992). 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer