Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Carbarcas-A, 96-6855 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6855 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jan. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6855 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUIS CARBARCAS-A, a/k/a Lucho, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-85-62-C, CA-95-436-3-P) Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-6855



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LUIS CARBARCAS-A, a/k/a Lucho,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-85-62-C, CA-95-436-3-P)


Submitted:   December 30, 1997            Decided:   January 15, 1998


Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Frank
DeArmon Whitney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). 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. Carbarcas-A, Nos. CR-85-62-C; CA-95-436-3-P
(W.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 
521 U.S.
___, 
1997 WL 338568
 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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.




                                                          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