Filed: Oct. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6525 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAULA V. MOSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-35, CA-97-139-4) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6525 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAULA V. MOSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-35, CA-97-139-4) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6525 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAULA V. MOSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-35, CA-97-139-4) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paula V. Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paula V. Moss seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. United States v. Moss, Nos. CR-94-35; CA-97-139-4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 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