Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Abbott, 96-7071 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7071 Visitors: 52
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD ALFONZO ABBOTT, a/k/a Bibby, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-65, CA-95-468-6) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismisse
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD ALFONZO ABBOTT, a/k/a Bibby, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-65, CA-95-468-6) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Alfonzo Abbott, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 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. Abbott, Nos. CR-92-65; CA-95- 468-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 1992, and June 23, 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. We deny the motions for bail and for appointment of counsel. 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