Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Parrish, 98-7598 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7598 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN F. PARRISH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-124, CA-98-298-2) Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: March 22, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN F. PARRISH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-124, CA-98-298-2) Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: March 22, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John F. Parrish, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John F. Parrish, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 and Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Parrish, Nos. CR-96-124; CA-98-298-2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 26, 1998). We dis- pense 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer