Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY WHYTE, a/k/a Charles Chambler, a/k/a Charlos Chambler, a/k/a Manny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-91-357-HAR, CA-97-4219-HNM) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY WHYTE, a/k/a Charles Chambler, a/k/a Charlos Chambler, a/k/a Manny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-91-357-HAR, CA-97-4219-HNM) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6250
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY WHYTE, a/k/a Charles Chambler, a/k/a
Charlos Chambler, a/k/a Manny,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
by designation. (CR-91-357-HAR, CA-97-4219-HNM)
Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Whyte, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Whyte seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-
ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, because we find that coun-
sel was not ineffective, we affirm. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984); see also Lockhart v. Fretwell,
506 U.S. 364
(1993). 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