Filed: Apr. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7299 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM DAVID MASON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-22, CA-95-1941-6-3) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7299 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM DAVID MASON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-22, CA-95-1941-6-3) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7299
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM DAVID MASON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-92-22, CA-95-1941-6-3)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William David Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Raymond Hawley,
Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the
district court's opinion and find no reversible error. See United
States v. Crittendon,
883 F.2d 326, 330-31 (4th Cir. 1989). Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Mason, Nos. CR-92-22; CA-95-1941-6-3 (D.S.C. July 27,
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 decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2