Filed: Oct. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6860 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLINTON F. TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-58, CA-95-23-NN) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6860 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLINTON F. TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-58, CA-95-23-NN) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis Mc..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6860 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLINTON F. TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-58, CA-95-23-NN) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis McQuaid Lawrence, ST. JOHN, BOWLING & LAWRENCE, Charlottes- ville, Virginia, for Appellant. Harvey Lee Bryant, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988), 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Taylor, Nos. CR-91-58; CA-95-23-NN (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2