Filed: Aug. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6649 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ZERREI SOUHEIL, a/k/a Smiley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-94-6, CA-96-139) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zerrei Souhe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6649 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ZERREI SOUHEIL, a/k/a Smiley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-94-6, CA-96-139) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zerrei Souhei..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6649 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ZERREI SOUHEIL, a/k/a Smiley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-94-6, CA-96-139) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zerrei Souheil, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988), as amended by Anti- terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, Souheil's motion for appointment of counsel is denied and we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Souheil, Nos. CR-94-6; CA-96-139 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 1996). 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