Filed: Apr. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH HARRIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-25-NN, CA-95-78-4) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH HARRIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-25-NN, CA-95-78-4) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH HARRIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-25-NN, CA-95-78-4) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Harris, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. According- ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-93-25-WN; CA-95-78-4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
