Filed: Jun. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6249 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY LEE HUFF, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Lee Huf
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6249 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY LEE HUFF, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Lee Huff..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6249
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HENRY LEE HUFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
District Judge. (CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6)
Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998
Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Lee Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Benjamin H. White, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Henry Lee Huff 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 ap-
pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Huff, CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6 (M.D.N.C.
Dec. 30, 1997). We also decline to address issues raised for the
first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993). 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