Filed: Apr. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLTON ALBERT BROADNAX, Defendant -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-93-171, CA-95-186) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLTON ALBERT BROADNAX, Defendant -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-93-171, CA-95-186) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLTON ALBERT BROADNAX, Defendant -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-93-171, CA-95-186) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Albert Broadnax, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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. Broadnax, Nos. CR-93-171; CA-95-186 (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 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
