Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Nichols, 96-7019 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7019 Visitors: 40
Filed: Jan. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONAVON RAY NICHOLS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-21, CA-96-41-3) Submitted: January 9, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONAVON RAY NICHOLS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-21, CA-96-41-3) Submitted: January 9, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donavon Ray Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Farrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nichols, Nos. CR-94-21; CA-96-41-3 (S.D.W. Va. May 20, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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. DISMISSED 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