Filed: Mar. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6152 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SYLVESTER CLIFFORD PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-93-6, CA-95-278-1) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester Cli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6152 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SYLVESTER CLIFFORD PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-93-6, CA-95-278-1) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester Clif..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6152 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SYLVESTER CLIFFORD PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-93-6, CA-95-278-1) Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester Clifford Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Phillips, Nos. CR-93-6; CA-95-278-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan 12, 1996). 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
