Filed: Apr. 02, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6864 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE WARD, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-37, CA-95-761-2) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Char
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6864 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE WARD, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-37, CA-95-761-2) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6864
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLIE WARD, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-93-37, CA-95-761-2)
Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie Ward, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assis-
tant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-
soning of the district court. United States v. Ward, Nos. CR-93-37;
CA-95-761-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 1996). We note that in the interim,
the Supreme Court decided United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___,
64
U.S.L.W. 4565 (U.S. June 24, 1996) (Nos. 95-345, 95-346), which
conclusively decides Ward's double jeopardy claim. 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