Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Caira, 96-6325 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6325 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERTO CAIRA, a/k/a Rangeen Khan, a/k/a Claude Bernard, a/k/a Jorge Miladeh, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., District Judge. (CR-86-5, CR-86-162, CA-94-3014-2-8) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERTO CAIRA, a/k/a Rangeen Khan, a/k/a Claude Bernard, a/k/a Jorge Miladeh, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., District Judge. (CR-86-5, CR-86-162, CA-94-3014-2-8) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alberto Caira, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, As- sistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (Law. Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996). 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason- ing of the district court. United States v. Caira, Nos. CR-86-5; CR-86-162; CA-94-3014-2-8 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 1996). We deny Appel- lant's motion to expedite the appeal in light of this disposition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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