Filed: Feb. 04, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICIA RAE FRUETEL, a/k/a Joe, a/k/a The Expert, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-70-N, CA-95-983-N) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICIA RAE FRUETEL, a/k/a Joe, a/k/a The Expert, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-70-N, CA-95-983-N) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICIA RAE FRUETEL, a/k/a Joe, a/k/a The Expert, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-70-N, CA-95-983-N) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Rae Fruetel, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 her 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fruetel, Nos. CR-91-70-N; CA-95-983-N (E.D. Va. July 22, 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. DISMISSED 2