Filed: Jul. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6813 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEE ALLEN LOWRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-92-42-H, CA-97-82-5-H) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6813 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEE ALLEN LOWRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-92-42-H, CA-97-82-5-H) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6813 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEE ALLEN LOWRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-92-42-H, CA-97-82-5-H) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Allen Lowry, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lowry, Nos. CR-92-42-H; CA-97-82-5-H (E.D.N.C. May 13, 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 decisional process. DISMISSED 2