Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Bumpus, 96-6705 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6705 Visitors: 30
Filed: Dec. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6705 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE BUMPUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-91-148, CA-94-500) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6705 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONNIE BUMPUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-91-148, CA-94-500) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Bumpus, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifi- cate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bumpus, Nos. CR-91-148; CA-94-500 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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