Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Powell, 97-6418 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6418 Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6418 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE WADE POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-193, CA-96-753-6) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6418 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE WADE POWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-193, CA-96-753-6) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie Wade Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders granting his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Powell, Nos. CR- 88-193; CA-96-753-6 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 22 & Mar. 7, 1997). We further deny Appellant's motion for a copy of the record on appeal. We dis- pense 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 2
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