Filed: Sep. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6550 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS CEBALLOS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-6566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS CEBALLOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-113, CA-96-40-3, CA-95-301-3-P) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6550 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS CEBALLOS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-6566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS CEBALLOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-113, CA-96-40-3, CA-95-301-3-P) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided:..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6550
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS CEBALLOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 96-6566
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS CEBALLOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-113, CA-96-40-3, CA-95-301-3-P)
Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Ceballos, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying his
habeas motions, 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
opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ceballos,
Nos. CR-93-113; CA-96-40-3; CA-95-301-3-P (W.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 1995;
Mar. 5, 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
3
