Filed: Oct. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6869 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ZIMMERMAN HESS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-92-15, CA-97-968-18-2) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Zi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6869 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ZIMMERMAN HESS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-92-15, CA-97-968-18-2) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Zim..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6869 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ZIMMERMAN HESS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-92-15, CA-97-968-18-2) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Zimmerman Hess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bicker- ton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Zimmerman Hess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hess, Nos. CR-92-15; CA-97-968-18-2 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 1998; May 27, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2