Filed: Oct. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAX GARFIELD ROSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-81, CA-97-330-R) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Max Garfield
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAX GARFIELD ROSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-81, CA-97-330-R) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Max Garfield R..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAX GARFIELD ROSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-81, CA-97-330-R) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Max Garfield Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rose, CR-94-81, CA-97-330-R (W.D. Va. May 8, 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
