Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8557 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO BLAND, a/k/a Anthony Scott Lloyd, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-39-NN, CA-94-80-4) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8557 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO BLAND, a/k/a Anthony Scott Lloyd, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-39-NN, CA-94-80-4) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8557 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO BLAND, a/k/a Anthony Scott Lloyd, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-39-NN, CA-94-80-4) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Bland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 habeas motion, 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bland, Nos. CR- 93-39-NN; CA-94-80-4 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2