Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Stancil, 96-6871 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6871 Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6871 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EPHRAIM VANDORIAN STANCIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-237-R, CA-95-625-3) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6871 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EPHRAIM VANDORIAN STANCIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-237-R, CA-95-625-3) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ephraim Vandorian Stancil, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley Glaser, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Anti- terrorism 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 certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stancil, Nos. CR-89-237-R; CA- 95-625-3 (M.D.N.C. May 20, 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 deci- sional 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