Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lacy, 95-7055 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7055 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT WILLIAM LACY, Defendant -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-88-35, CA-94-845-2) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT WILLIAM LACY, Defendant -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-88-35, CA-94-845-2) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert William Lacy, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Although the lower court erroneously stated that Appellant pled guilty to count 7 of the indictment, this error was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. Ac- cordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for transcripts at government expense, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1988), and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lacy, Nos. CR-88-35; CA-94- 845-2 (S.D.W. Va. June 7, 1995). 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 deci- sional 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