Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Richard Lee Harrington, 93-6279 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6279 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 24, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 996 F.2d 1213 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. Richard Lee HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-6279. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 7, 1993. Decided: June 24, 1993. Appeal from the United St
More

996 F.2d 1213

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Richard Lee HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-6279.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 7, 1993.
Decided: June 24, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-99-A)

Richard Lee Harrington, Appellant Pro Se.

Jerry Walter Kilgore, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Gate City, Virginia, for Appellee.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Richard Lee Harrington 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 discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Harrington, No. CR-90-99-A (W.D. Va. Jan. 7, 1993).* 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

*

We deem Harrington's Notice of Appeal timely under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)

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