Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUTHER RUTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 90-91-S, CA-96-2300-S) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luth
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUTHER RUTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 90-91-S, CA-96-2300-S) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luthe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LUTHER RUTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
90-91-S, CA-96-2300-S)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luther Ruth, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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.* United
States v. Ruth, Nos. CR-90-91-S; CA-96-2300-S (D. Md. July 31,
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
*
To the extent that the district court held that Appellant
waived the first claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal,
Stone v. Powell,
428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976), and that the second
claim is noncognizable in a § 2255 action because it was rejected
on direct appeal, Davis v. United States,
417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974),
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
2