Filed: Apr. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL A. LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-89-273, CA-95-76-5) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 9, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul A. Le
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL A. LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-89-273, CA-95-76-5) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 9, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul A. Lee..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL A. LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-89-273, CA-95-76-5) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 9, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assis- tant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). 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 certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lee, Nos. CR-89-273; CA-95-76-5 (N.D.W. Va. May 24, 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 decisional process. DISMISSED 2