Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Mastronardi, 96-6751 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6751 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES P. MASTRONARDI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-435, CA-96-264-6-20) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES P. MASTRONARDI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-435, CA-96-264-6-20) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Mastronardi, Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his motion 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mastronardi, Nos. CR-91-435; CA-96-264-6-20 (D.S.C. April 8, 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