Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6579 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND HAMPTON PUTZE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-91-151, CA-96-3-3) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Hampton Pu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6579 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND HAMPTON PUTZE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-91-151, CA-96-3-3) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Hampton Put..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6579
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND HAMPTON PUTZE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-91-151, CA-96-3-3)
Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Hampton Putze, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Richmond, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), as 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 dis-
trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Putze, Nos. CR-91-151, CA-96-3-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 28,
1996). We further note that Appellant's failure to challenge the
alleged sentencing errors at his sentencing hearing waived the
right to raise any such claims either on appeal or pursuant to this
collateral attack. United States v. Grubb,
11 F.3d 426, 440 (4th
Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Jackson,
974 F.2d 57, 60 (7th
Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
508 U.S. 977 (1993). 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