Filed: Jul. 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSMEL GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-289) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Osmel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSMEL GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-289) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Osmel ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
OSMEL GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-289)
Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Osmel Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
for leave to supplement his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Although Appellant’s appeal of the
district court’s margin order denying his motion was interlocutory
when filed, it is now ripe because the district court entered final
judgment prior to this court’s review of the appeal. See Equipment
Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers,
973 F.2d 345, 347
(4th Cir. 1992). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis-
miss the appeal. United States v. Garcia, No. CR-96-289 (E.D. Va.
Jan. 13, 1998). 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