Filed: Feb. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7711 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DIANNA BAKER GRIFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-23, CA-94-599-3) Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7711 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DIANNA BAKER GRIFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-23, CA-94-599-3) Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7711 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DIANNA BAKER GRIFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-23, CA-94-599-3) Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dianna Baker Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 her 28 U.S.C. ยง 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. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Griffin, Nos. CR-94-23; CA-94-599-3 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 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