Filed: Oct. 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN COMMANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-91-57-G, CA-97-686-2) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN COMMANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-91-57-G, CA-97-686-2) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7061
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN COMMANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
District Judge. (CR-91-57-G, CA-97-686-2)
Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 27, 1998
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Commander, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Commander, Nos. CR-91-57-G; CA-97-686-2
(M.D.N.C. May 26, 1998). In addition, this Court will generally not
consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Karpel v.
Inova Health Sys. Servs.,
134 F.3d 1222, 1227 (4th Cir. 1998). We
note there was sufficient evidence to sentence Appellant based upon
crack cocaine. 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