Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Roseboro, 96-6219 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6219 Visitors: 28
Filed: Aug. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6219 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL WESLEY ROSEBORO, a/k/a High Top Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-91-246, CA-95-155-6) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Af
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6219 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL WESLEY ROSEBORO, a/k/a High Top Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-91-246, CA-95-155-6) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Wesley Roseboro, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict 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. Roseboro, Nos. CR-91-246; CA-95-155-6 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer