Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Piloto, 98-6366 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6366 Visitors: 80
Filed: Oct. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAUL ARMANDO PILOTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-203-P, CA-97-194-P) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6366 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAUL ARMANDO PILOTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-203-P, CA-97-194-P) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raul Armando Piloto, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Charlotte, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion 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. Piloto, Nos. CR-92-203-P; CA-97-194-P (W.D.N.C. Dec. 31, 1997). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer