Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6046 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUAN PRATT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-123-3-MU, CA-97-28-3-MU) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6046 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUAN PRATT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-123-3-MU, CA-97-28-3-MU) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6046
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN PRATT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-95-123-3-MU, CA-97-28-3-MU)
Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Pratt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Pratt waived the right to
collaterally attack his conviction or sentence except on specified
grounds, and he fails to show that he received ineffective assis-
tance of counsel. See Lockhart v. Fretwell,
506 U.S. 364 (1993).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States
v. Pratt, Nos. CR-95-123-3-MU; CA-97-28-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Dec. 14,
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.
DISMISSED
2