Filed: May 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY WILLIAM BARTLETT, a/k/a Harold C. Eller, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-87, CA-96-953-1) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY WILLIAM BARTLETT, a/k/a Harold C. Eller, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-87, CA-96-953-1) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY WILLIAM BARTLETT, a/k/a Harold C. Eller, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-87, CA-96-953-1) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy William Bartlett, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Patrick Mebane, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 1998). 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 appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bartlett, Nos. CR-94-87; CA-96-953-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2