Filed: Oct. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY HOUSTON, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-155, CA-97-1083-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY HOUSTON, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-155, CA-97-1083-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY HOUSTON, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-155, CA-97-1083-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Houston, III, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Margaret Flint, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. Houston, Nos. CR-96-155; CA-97-1083-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 1998). 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