Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-361-A, CA-98-1442-AM) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-361-A, CA-98-1442-AM) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-361-A, CA-98-1442-AM) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin David Miller, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry Chin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) and motion filed 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 dis- miss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Chin, Nos. CR-94-361-A; CA-98-1442-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 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