Filed: Jul. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE THOMPSON, a/k/a Big Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-88-152-G, CA-95-114-CV-2) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE THOMPSON, a/k/a Big Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-88-152-G, CA-95-114-CV-2) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6118
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLIE THOMPSON, a/k/a Big Red,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-88-152-G, CA-95-114-CV-2)
Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996
Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988)* motion. We have reviewed the record and
the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the
district court. United States v. Thompson, Nos. CR-88-152-G; CA-95-
114-CV-2 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 1995). As to Appellant's Motion for
Oral Argument, 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.
DISMISSED
*
As amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (Law
Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996).
2