Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Smith, 96-7189 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7189 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 04, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7189 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS LAMAR SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-200-S, CA-96-131-4) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7189 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS LAMAR SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-200-S, CA-96-131-4) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lamar Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, As- sistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), 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, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR- 91-200-S; CA-96-131-4 (M.D.N.C. July 23, 1996). We deny as moot Appellant's motion to hold the case in abeyance for United States v. Stroman, No. 96-6054 (4th Cir., July 30, 1996) (unpublished). 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. 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