Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gravette, 19-4377 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4377 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE FRANK GRAVETTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-5-MU, CR-91-6-ST, CR-91-15-MU-SH, CA-92-63-MU) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by un
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE FRANK GRAVETTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-5-MU, CR-91-6-ST, CR-91-15-MU-SH, CA-92-63-MU) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Frank Gravette, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 finding no merit in Appellant's additional claims, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gravette, Nos. CR-91-5-MU; CR-91-6-ST; CR- 91-15-MU-SH; CA-92-63-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials 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