Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Truman Leo McGlamry, 96-6374 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6374 Visitors: 26
Filed: Aug. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 92 F.3d 1183 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. Truman Leo McGLAMRY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6374. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted July 23, 1996. Decided Aug. 5, 1996. Appeal from the United Sta
More

92 F.3d 1183

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Truman Leo McGLAMRY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-6374.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 23, 1996.
Decided Aug. 5, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-88-136-G, CA-95-301-2)

Truman Leo McGlamry, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (Law Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We deny Appellant's motion to proceed through a next friend and for access to the record. United States v. McGlamry, Nos. CR-88-136-G; CA-95-301-2 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 1996). 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