Filed: Sep. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6904 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAMONA MARIA DIFAZIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-94-2-4, CA-96-152-4) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6904 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAMONA MARIA DIFAZIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-94-2-4, CA-96-152-4) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6904 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAMONA MARIA DIFAZIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-94-2-4, CA-96-152-4) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona Maria DiFazio, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Sherrie Scott Hardwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion ac- cepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. DiFazio, Nos. CR-94-2-4; CA-96-152-4 (E.D. Va. May 30, 1997). 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. DISMISSED 2