Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Campbell, 96-6460 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6460 Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD DONALD CAMPBELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-138, CA-96-61-3-P) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD DONALD CAMPBELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-138, CA-96-61-3-P) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Donald Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 habeas motion, 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Campbell, Nos. CR-93-138; CA-96-61-3-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1996). We further deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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