Filed: Feb. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-88-71) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-88-71) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-88-71) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. William Anthony Kolibash, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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. United States v. Thomas, No. CR-88-71 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 18, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
