Filed: Sep. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6888 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-131-P, CA-97-242-3-P) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6888 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-131-P, CA-97-242-3-P) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6888 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-131-P, CA-97-242-3-P) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherrell Gary Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying 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 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. Brinkley, Nos. CR-91-131-P; CA-97-242-3-P (W.D.N.C. Apr. 30 and May 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2