Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE JAMES MURPHY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-277, CA-97-58-2) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE JAMES MURPHY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-277, CA-97-58-2) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6280 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE JAMES MURPHY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-277, CA-97-58-2) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie James Murphy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Murphy, Nos. CR-91-277; CA-97-58-2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 11, 1997). 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