Filed: Sep. 29, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHERRI PROVINCE SHELBURNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-39-R, CA-96-259-R) Submitted: September 16, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHERRI PROVINCE SHELBURNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-39-R, CA-96-259-R) Submitted: September 16, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7327
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHERRI PROVINCE SHELBURNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-92-39-R, CA-96-259-R)
Submitted: September 16, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherri Province Shelburne, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Shelburne, Nos. CR-92-39-R; CA-96-259-R
(W.D. Va. July 30, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997
WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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.
AFFIRMED
2