Filed: Apr. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7810 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REN P. SETCHELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-88-269, CA-95-356-6) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7810 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REN P. SETCHELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-88-269, CA-95-356-6) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7810 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REN P. SETCHELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-88-269, CA-95-356-6) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ren P. Setchell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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. Setchell, Nos. CR-88-269, CA-95-356-6 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
