Filed: Aug. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-7462 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ELIECER LONDONO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-87-321-A) Submitted: April 9, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-7462 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ELIECER LONDONO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-87-321-A) Submitted: April 9, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-7462 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ELIECER LONDONO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-87-321-A) Submitted: April 9, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Eliecer Londono, Appellant Pro Se. David Shepardson Cayer, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no basis for awarding relief. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. United States v. Londono, No. CR-87-321-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 1993). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
