Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERNON LANCE THOMAS, a/k/a Anthony Mack, a/k/a V, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-92-68, CA-97-614) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERNON LANCE THOMAS, a/k/a Anthony Mack, a/k/a V, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-92-68, CA-97-614) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7568 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERNON LANCE THOMAS, a/k/a Anthony Mack, a/k/a V, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-92-68, CA-97-614) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon Lance Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vernon Lance Thomas 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-92-68; CA-97-614 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1998). 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. AFFIRMED 2
