Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Betts, 97-6248 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6248 Visitors: 27
Filed: Aug. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY S.O. BETTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-22, CA-97-65-AM) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony S.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY S.O. BETTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-22, CA-97-65-AM) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony S.O. Betts, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Betts, Nos. CR-92-22; CA-97-65-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 1997). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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