Filed: Feb. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6516 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONNA LAMYRTLE COLLINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-231-A, CA-95-117-1) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6516 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONNA LAMYRTLE COLLINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-231-A, CA-95-117-1) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6516
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONNA LAMYRTLE COLLINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief
District Judge. (CR-90-231-A, CA-95-117-1)
Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donna Lamyrtle Collington, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 her
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. Collington, Nos. CR-90-231-A; CA-95-117-1
(W.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
65
U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2