Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY C. HOFFMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CR-91-84, CA-96-16-2) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry C. Hoffman, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY C. HOFFMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CR-91-84, CA-96-16-2) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry C. Hoffman, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY C. HOFFMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CR-91-84, CA-96-16-2) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry C. Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hoffman, Nos. CR-91-84; CA- 96-16-2 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 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 deci- sional process. DISMISSED 2
