Filed: Jul. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OTTO RANDOLPH FENNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-153, CA-98-547-1) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otto Rand
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OTTO RANDOLPH FENNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-153, CA-98-547-1) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otto Rando..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OTTO RANDOLPH FENNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-153, CA-98-547-1) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otto Randolph Fenner, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Otto Randolph Fenner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Fenner, Nos. CR-96-153; CA-98-547-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2