Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Cuff, 96-6632 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6632 Visitors: 61
Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6632 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARL DALVIN CUFF, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-4-NN, CA-96-4-NN) Submitted: January 31, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6632 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARL DALVIN CUFF, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-4-NN, CA-96-4-NN) Submitted: January 31, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl Dalvin Cuff, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo- tion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Cuff, No. CR-93- 4-NN; CA-96-4-NN (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 1996). We deny Appellant's pending motion to appoint counsel and 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 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