Filed: Jul. 30, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-196, CA-97-434) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Allen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-196, CA-97-434) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Allen ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6159
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEROME THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-196, CA-97-434)
Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Allen Collias, MCINTYRE & COLLIAS, Charleston, West Virginia;
Samuel H. Shamansky, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. John Kirk
Brandfass, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 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. Thomas, CR-93-196, CA-97-434 (S.D.W. Va.
Jan. 6, 1998). We also note that Thomas was not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Yearwood,
863 F.2d 6, 7
(4th Cir. 1988). 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