Filed: Sep. 10, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LESTER MATTHEW PATTERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-51, CA-95-139-5-BO) Submitted: August 19, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LESTER MATTHEW PATTERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-51, CA-95-139-5-BO) Submitted: August 19, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7757
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LESTER MATTHEW PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District
Judge. (CR-94-51, CA-95-139-5-BO)
Submitted: August 19, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lester Matthew Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his mo-
tion to amend a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1997). After final judgment, a plaintiff may amend his complaint
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) only with leave of court after the
judgment has been set aside under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60(b).
Figgie Int'l Inc. v. Miller,
966 F.2d 1178, 1179 (7th Cir. 1992).
We review denial of leave for abuse of discretion. Id. As we find
no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision here, we
affirm his judgment. We grant Appellant's motion to file a supple-
mental informal brief, but deny Appellant's motions for production
of documents, to hold the appeal in abeyance to amend the appellate
record, and to stay the appeal. 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 deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2