Filed: Apr. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7189 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LAMAR BRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-328, CA-95-701) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7189 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LAMAR BRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-328, CA-95-701) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7189 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LAMAR BRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-328, CA-95-701) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Lamar Brice, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion for reconsideration in this 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brice v. United States, No. CR-92-328; CA- 95-701 (D.S.C. July 18, 1995). We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
