Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL LEWIS EASLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-63, CA-95-257-R) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendell Lewis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL LEWIS EASLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-63, CA-95-257-R) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendell Lewis ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL LEWIS EASLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-63, CA-95-257-R) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendell Lewis Easley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and denying his motion for recon- sideration. 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. Easley, Nos. CR- 93-63; CA-95-257-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 11 & 30, 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
