Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. White, 96-7074 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7074 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT W. WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-7076 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT W. WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-83-316, CA-96-1140, CR-84-22, CA-96-1141) Submitted: December 19, 1996
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT W. WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-7076 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT W. WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-83-316, CA-96-1140, CR-84-22, CA-96-1141) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. 2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert W. White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for reconsideration and his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. White, Nos. CR- 83-316; CR-84-22; CA-96-1140; CA-96-1141 (D.S.C. May 24, 1996; June 17, 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 3
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