Filed: Feb. 26, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHAN D. DEBREW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-156, CA-95-412) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHAN D. DEBREW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-156, CA-95-412) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHAN D. DEBREW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-156, CA-95-412) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathan D. Debrew, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), as 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifi- cate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Debrew, Nos. CR-94-156; CA-95-412 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 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. DISMISSED 2