Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6958 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NILGEL R. PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-577, CA-96-3879-1) Submitted: November 25, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nilgel R. Park
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6958 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NILGEL R. PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-577, CA-96-3879-1) Submitted: November 25, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nilgel R. Parke..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6958
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NILGEL R. PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-91-577, CA-96-3879-1)
Submitted: November 25, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998
Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nilgel R. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nilgel Parker 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 cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court.* United States v. Parker, Nos. CR-91-577;
CA-96-3879-1 (D.S.C. May 5, 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 deci-
sional process.
DISMISSED
*
Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not
properly before this court because he did not raise it in the dis-
trict court. See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).
2