Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Kirk, 96-6680 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6680 Visitors: 41
Filed: Dec. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6680 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH ALAN KIRK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-107, CA-95-1057-5-F) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6680 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH ALAN KIRK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-107, CA-95-1057-5-F) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Alan Kirk, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo- tion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), 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 deny the motion for discovery to supplement the record and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Kirk, Nos. CR-90- 107; CA-95-1057-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 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