Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Tucker, 96-6346 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6346 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6346 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE MACK TUCKER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-339, CA-96-93-20-7) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6346 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE MACK TUCKER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-339, CA-96-93-20-7) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Mack Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beattie B. Ashmore, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 brought under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988), amended by Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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. Tucker, Nos. CR-95-339; CA-96-93-20-7 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 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 * Appellant has also filed a motion for production of sentencing transcripts. As these transcripts are already part of the record, we deny his motion as moot. 2
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