Filed: Jul. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THEODORE O. LOFTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-91-58-H) Submitted: June 17, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THEODORE O. LOFTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-91-58-H) Submitted: June 17, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THEODORE O. LOFTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-91-58-H)
Submitted: June 17, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore O. Loftin, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Theodore O. Loftin 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. 1998)).* 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. Loftin, No. CR-91-58-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 4,
1996). See Lindh v. Murphy,
521 U.S. ___,
65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S.
June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). The motions to appoint counsel and to
amend pleadings are denied. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
Although Loftin styled his motion a motion for modification
of sentence, see 28 U.S.C. § 3582 (West 1994), it is more properly
construed as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
2