Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6424 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY LYNN COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-49, CA-96-82-R/B) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Lynn Co
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6424 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY LYNN COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-49, CA-96-82-R/B) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Lynn Coo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6424
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BOBBY LYNN COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District
Judge. (CR-90-49, CA-96-82-R/B)
Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Lynn Cooper, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his
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. Cooper, Nos. CR-90-49; CA-96-82-R/B (W.D.
Va. Mar. 6, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
1997 WL
338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). Appellant's motion for
discovery and expansion of the record is hereby denied. 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