Filed: Sep. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT GARFIELD MCKEITHAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-91-106-R, CA-95-851) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Ga
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT GARFIELD MCKEITHAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-91-106-R, CA-95-851) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Gar..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT GARFIELD MCKEITHAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-91-106-R, CA-95-851) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Garfield McKeithan, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville Douglass, Robert William Jaspen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McKeithan, Nos. CR-91-106- R; CA-95-851 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 1996). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
