Filed: Sep. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6506 DARVIN LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA; BARBARA L. BERAN; EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.; ANTHONY W. NYKTAS; WILLIAM E. HUNT; JANET RENO; ANTHONY CARTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-218-5-BR) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6506 DARVIN LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA; BARBARA L. BERAN; EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.; ANTHONY W. NYKTAS; WILLIAM E. HUNT; JANET RENO; ANTHONY CARTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-218-5-BR) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and W..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6506 DARVIN LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA; BARBARA L. BERAN; EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.; ANTHONY W. NYKTAS; WILLIAM E. HUNT; JANET RENO; ANTHONY CARTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-218-5-BR) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darvin Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Lawson v. Lamanna, No. CA-96-218-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
