Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Beasley, 96-6652 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6652 Visitors: 29
Filed: Nov. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD VAUGHN BEASLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-30, CA-95-465-R) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD VAUGHN BEASLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-30, CA-95-465-R) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Vaughn Beasley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter- rorism 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. Beasley, Nos. CR-92-30; CA-95-465-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 9, 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 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